what is social life essay

Social Life

Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff

A person’s social life consists of the various bonds they form with others, such as family, friends, members of their community, and strangers. It can be measured by the duration and quality of the social interactions they have on a regular basis, both in person and online.

• How Important Is Your Social Life?
• How Can I Improve My Social Life?

Human beings are social animals, and the tenor of someone's social life is one of the most important influences on their mental and physical health. Without positive, durable relationships, both minds and bodies can fall apart.

Individuals begin life dependent for survival on the quality of their relationship with their primary caregiver , usually their mother. Humanity's survival as a species similarly hinges on the capacity for social living. Most of human history was spent in small groups in which each individual was dependent on others for survival; evidence suggests this is the condition to which humans are best adapted.

Technology has changed the ways people interact with others in their daily lives, but it hasn’t affected the basic need to form supportive bonds with other people.

Human beings are a social species, driven by a desire for community and belonging. Social interactions feed that need. They are also beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint—social interactions help people build communication skills and cooperate to achieve a common goal, as shown by this research on friendly foxes .

Social interaction occurs between groups of two (dyads) or more individuals. They may be more transactional, with one party trying to get the other to behave a certain way, or they may be more cooperative and intended to provide mutual pleasure. Studies suggest that the quantity of social interaction matters: Spending more time around other people can increase an individual’s happiness and satisfaction with life. 

People tend to withdraw from social life for a variety of reasons: They may be shy , prone to avoidance, naturally unsocial, rejected by their peers, or they may simply enjoy spending time alone. While many people become loners out of fear and anxiety , not all motivations are harmful. Some people, such as hermits, can get great pleasure out of leading a solitary life.   

In life, it’s important to be comfortable enough at interacting with people to get your basic needs met. But how deep do those relationships need to grow? While you might long for closer friendships, they simply aren’t necessary to your survival or even your happiness . What does matter is how comfortable and content you are with being alone.  

There is no “right” number of friends that someone should have. What matters is the individual’s perception of the quality of their friendships and how much satisfaction they receive in the process.   

Understanding how to establish and maintain supportive connections in any medium is an essential part of life. People who live alone especially benefit from cultivating a strong network of social connections.

People have the freedom today to build their particular social cohort both online and offline; their social circles may include family, friends, professional mentors, and other important individuals in their lives. Online social ties can be a powerful source of social support and joy, especially for people who are isolated for geographical or other reasons. There is, however, no substitute for face-to-face interaction, and those who spend time among friends and family report higher levels of well-being than individuals with fewer ties "in real life."

Making friends may seem like a mysterious process, but it’s actually rooted in some basic social truths. For example, it’s easiest to develop friendships with people who are in close proximity, share similar interests, and support your social identity . Maintaining a friendship requires you to be supportive, disclose personal information, interact regularly, and be more positive than negative on balance.     

Many people find it difficult to make new friends as adults . As they age, most of their time and energy get consumed by career and family demands. They tend to socialize out of convenience with co-workers, bosses, the parents of their children’s friends, etc., but these relationships often don’t deepen into anything more lasting.

Unlike some childhood experiences, adult friendships don’t just magically happen due to luck. The secret to making friends as an adult is that you have to put yourself out there; show up at events (even when you don’t want to) and actively engage with other people who might share your interests. Being present and having a positive attitude can go a long way to opening up the possibility for a deeper friendship.

It's not just your physical muscles that need exercise. Your social muscles do, too. Here's where to start.

Your regular feelings of stress may have deep roots. Recognizing those roots may help uncover your unhelpful behavior patterns and negative beliefs.

Years ago, people worked for one or two companies for their entire working life. Now, you must build your career path while moving from job to job.

A Personal Perspective: Following the Golden Rule benefits us and the people we help. When we receive blessings, we should pay them forward.

Why do people play games in relationships, especially when manipulation tends to turn out badly? How can you avoid games and build intimacy instead?

Vivek Murthy is informing the public about the problem of loneliness and social isolation and its effects on individual and community well-being, and proposing solutions.

Do you fear differences in opinion? Too often, they lead to conflict. Here are some ideas to strengthen rather than weaken relationships when conflict occurs.

A Personal Perspective: Mutual consent contact ensures both parties are ready to connect, providing a more positive experience than DNA websites' often unexpected results.

Camera collectors possess curiosity, aesthetic appreciation, nostalgia, attention to detail, and a sense of community, among other characteristics.

The journey of life is a constant interplay of change and sameness. We navigate change to preserve sameness.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Essay on Balancing Social Life And Academics

Students are often asked to write an essay on Balancing Social Life And Academics in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Balancing Social Life And Academics

Understanding the challenge.

Balancing social life and academics can be tough. It’s like juggling two balls at once. Academics are important for our future, but social life helps us grow as people. We need to find a balance between the two.

Time Management

Quality over quantity.

It’s not about how much time you spend, but how you spend it. Focus on your studies when you’re studying, and enjoy your time with friends when you’re not. Don’t mix the two.

Importance of Breaks

Taking breaks is important too. After a period of study, take a short break. This helps your brain relax and absorb what you’ve learned. It also gives you time to socialize.

Seeking Help

250 words essay on balancing social life and academics, introduction.

Balancing social life and academics can be a challenge for many students. It’s like walking on a tightrope, where you need to maintain a perfect balance to avoid falling. On one side is your academic life, filled with books, assignments, and exams. On the other side is your social life, full of friends, hobbies, and fun activities.

The Importance of Academics

Academics are very important in a student’s life. They help you gain knowledge and skills that are essential for your future. Good grades can open doors to better opportunities, like getting into a great college or landing a good job. So, you should always give priority to your studies.

The Role of Social Life

Your social life is equally important. It helps you develop social skills, make friends, and learn about different cultures and perspectives. Participating in extra-curricular activities can also help you discover your talents and passions. So, it’s important not to ignore this aspect of your life.

Striking a Balance

The key to balancing academics and social life is effective time management. You need to create a schedule that includes time for studying and time for fun activities. Make sure to stick to your schedule. It’s also important to take breaks and relax to avoid burnout.

In conclusion, both academics and social life are important for overall development. It’s not about choosing one over the other, but finding a balance between the two. With good time management and discipline, you can excel in your studies while also enjoying your social life.

500 Words Essay on Balancing Social Life And Academics

First, it’s important to understand why academics matter. School is a place where you learn new things. You gain knowledge about the world, learn new skills, and prepare for your future career. Good grades can open doors to great colleges and job opportunities. So, studying should be a key part of your life as a student.

But school isn’t just about studying. It’s also a place where you make friends and learn about people. Joining clubs, playing sports, and hanging out with friends can help you learn important life skills. You can learn how to work in a team, how to communicate, and how to solve problems. These skills can be as important as the ones you learn in class.

So how can you balance academics and social life? The key is to plan your time. Make a schedule that includes time for studying, time for fun, and time for rest. Stick to your schedule as much as you can. This way, you can make sure you’re giving enough time to both your studies and your social life.

Strategies for Balance

Balancing social life and academics is not easy, but it’s possible. With good planning and a little discipline, you can do well in school and still have time for fun. Remember, both academics and social life are important. They both help you learn, grow, and prepare for the future. So, make sure to give both the time and effort they deserve.

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

• Skip to main content
• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Study Today

Largest Compilation of Structured Essays and Exams

Essay on Social Life

January 22, 2018 by Study Mentor Leave a Comment

Man is a social animal, he cannot live in isolation. Social interactions are part and parcel of every human life and it goes without saying that, interdependence is the keyword of our lives. Social networking and catching up with relatives and friends are essential to maintain balanced and cordial relationships.

Man stresses out with his work load in his working hours and relaxes during the weekends. During this time, he utilizes his time and energy to rejuvenate the lost energy and refresh his mind. He socializes with his friends over a phone call or meets them personally.

He may even choose to go out with them and spend quality time or through other popular social media platforms like  Facebook ,  Twitter ,  WhatsApp  etc. Messaging friends to stay in touch with them to maintain friendly relationships is an ideal way to keep the trust intact.   

The world is a small place today. Distances no longer matter. Today we have parents staying in one country and their children residing in some other country owing to distant work locations and the increased interest in studying abroad.

That leaves little contact with the children to connect with their parents on a day to day basis, but this used to be a thing of the past. With advancements in science and technology, distances are no longer a very big issue. Children can interact with their parents as and when they want by using a host of technology services right from calling up, video chatting, messaging etc.  

Table of Contents

Social Life at Family Events  

Family is an important part of a person’s life and a person spends his entire lifetime nurturing and working for his family. People work hard to ensure well being of their family members. Earlier, family sizes were huge and a big family stayed together, with all relatives residing under the same roof.

As family sizes started shrinking, nuclear families sprung up and the big family concept now got divided into multiple, scattered sub-family units. The larger family consisted of these smaller sub units staying together as a whole big family under the same single roof.

Due to the scattering of families away from each other, it makes sense to stay connected with this extended family from time to time. Cousins meet up to discuss their future plans and have some good time together. Elders of the house discuss family matters and issues amongst themselves.

Meeting up during weekends and during special occasions of the family are some of the times when the full family comes together. Socializing with the entire family brings in happiness and enthusiasm to lead a joyful life.  

Functions and important family events like marriage and other special ceremonies bring the large family into the celebration mode and people forget their tensions and worries for a while and enjoy together. The elders of the family sit back and enjoy the youngsters having a great time together and bless them with all their greatness.

At such events people decorate their places with a lot of pomp and show, enjoy tasty delicacies, dance and groove to happy music and create a lively ambience around. Men and women participate and further strengthen their relationships and bonding with each other. Family get together are also very common and create a nice opportunity for the full family to be present.   

Travelling 

Travelling relieves tension from a man’s mind and gives him many more outdoors to think openly. Travelling to new and unknown places with friends and family improves our social life further by connecting us with something unseen, making us enjoy the serene nature outside and spend some time getting close to mother nature.

Friends spend some of the best moments together by travelling to new places. They explore new interests and find out cultural diversities of new places, click photos together and spend a very good time with each other. They create happy memories for one another by bonding over a cup of coffee or hanging out at new restaurants.   

Travelling with family is quite different, that is also part of having a social life for ourselves but in a different way. With family trips, the carefree attitude that comes in with friends does not exist. Responsibilities of the family takes primary importance and other concerns also play a very significant role.

When families visit religious places together, they get to know more about their traditions and cultural systems. When they travel together to other travel spots around the globe, a lot of learning and self-understanding comes into the loop.   

Importance of Having a Social Life  

A social life leads man to think outside of him. It gives him space to express his feelings and not curb them inside his own mind. A free mind without any inherent worries lets man think and act more responsibly. When man becomes a very ignorant person, stuffed inside his own shell, rotting amidst   unending emotions and situations, he becomes a victim of his own isolation.

He fails to understand that being all alone can create a situation worse than what he is facing currently. He begins to view the whole world as something that is going against him. He starts separating himself from the rest of the world and begins to lose trust on people.

He starts judging society the wrong way and thinks he is the only person with the right attitude. Such persons are very common in our society and they are disliked by many for this kind of peculiar behavior. People need to be counseled to spend time out of their couches and venture into the open to realize new things.   

Today we can have an active social life not just by going out and spending hours together with our family friends. There are a whole lot of options available on social media that brings us closer to the people we like. We can post updates on Facebook and let the whole world know about it.

We can tweet on twitter about a particular thing that we feel and express our opinions in front of the whole world again. Messenger is an application tool through which we can stay connected through online mode with persons we want to be in constant touch with.

Other applications like whatsapp also have wonderful usage benefits like keeping all the contacts on our phone abreast with what we are up to. Friends like to hang out at the nearest mall to spend time with each other and chat about the latest happenings on their lives. They treat each other well and enjoy their delicacies together, for this we have seen multiple restaurants coming up in the last few years.   

Apart from social media networking, the best way to stay connected with friends still remains meeting them personally. A personal touch to a needy friend in his good or bad times creates a happy environment for him and changes his mind.

Today people are involved in a lot of recreational activities apart from their work like yoga and meditation classes, musical instrument classes; cooking classes etc. shopping with close friends is another best way of socializing with friends. Shopping for clothes, jewellery, footwear, crockery and what not.

It helps one learn about the latest and the best brands available in market and lets one know of their friends interests as well. Socializing and attending parties during college days are something that is quite common these days. But socializing at events not permitted by parents should be taken care of.

Social media platforms too need to be monitored upon. If there is nobody to monitor what kids are doing on social media platforms, then that might lead to disastrous situations. Parents must explain to their children, the importance of socializing with their family and friends, apart from getting involved in their work, as that will lead to the overall development of the child.

Socializing is a term used to describe a man’s time and energy given out in connecting with his family and friends. Socializing is a good thing, but should be done within limits. Parents may not like their children socializing too much on social media, for which children should understand it in a right way.

Reader Interactions

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Top Trending Essays in March 2021

• Essay on Pollution
• Essay on my School
• Summer Season
• My favourite teacher
• World heritage day quotes
• my family speech
• importance of trees essay
• autobiography of a pen
• honesty is the best policy essay
• essay on building a great india
• my favourite book essay
• essay on caa
• my favourite player
• autobiography of a river
• farewell speech for class 10 by class 9
• essay my favourite teacher 200 words
• internet influence on kids essay
• my favourite cartoon character

Brilliantly

Content & links.

Verified by Sur.ly

Essay for Students

• Essay for Class 1 to 5 Students

Scholarships for Students

• Class 1 Students Scholarship
• Class 2 Students Scholarship
• Class 3 Students Scholarship
• Class 4 Students Scholarship
• Class 5 students Scholarship
• Class 6 Students Scholarship
• Class 7 students Scholarship
• Class 8 Students Scholarship
• Class 9 Students Scholarship
• Class 10 Students Scholarship
• Class 11 Students Scholarship
• Class 12 Students Scholarship

STAY CONNECTED

• About Study Today
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions

Scholarships

• Apj Abdul Kalam Scholarship
• Ashirwad Scholarship
• Bihar Scholarship
• Canara Bank Scholarship
• Colgate Scholarship
• Dr Ambedkar Scholarship
• E District Scholarship
• Epass Karnataka Scholarship
• Fair And Lovely Scholarship
• Floridas John Mckay Scholarship
• Inspire Scholarship
• Jio Scholarship
• Karnataka Minority Scholarship
• Lic Scholarship
• Maulana Azad Scholarship
• Medhavi Scholarship
• Minority Scholarship
• Moma Scholarship
• Mp Scholarship
• Muslim Minority Scholarship
• Nsp Scholarship
• Oasis Scholarship
• Obc Scholarship
• Odisha Scholarship
• Pfms Scholarship
• Post Matric Scholarship
• Pre Matric Scholarship
• Prerana Scholarship
• Prime Minister Scholarship
• Rajasthan Scholarship
• Santoor Scholarship
• Sitaram Jindal Scholarship
• Ssp Scholarship
• Swami Vivekananda Scholarship
• Ts Epass Scholarship
• Up Scholarship
• Vidhyasaarathi Scholarship
• Wbmdfc Scholarship
• West Bengal Minority Scholarship
• Click Here Now!!

Mobile Number

Have you Burn Crackers this Diwali ? Yes No

The Impact of Socialization on My Life Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

My initial socialization, secondary, developmental, anticipatory and occupational socialization, re-socialization, social agents, the impacts of my socialization.

Socialization is a process of acquiring other people’s Ideas and norms providing a person with necessary abilities for building him/herself and for societal participatory. On the other hand socialization may not be normative as “it also describes processes which may or may not affect the reflexive agents, and which may or may not lead to desirable or moral outcomes. Individual views on certain issues, such as race may again be socialized within a society” (Mathews, 2002).

Socialization also prepares an individual for the roles he/she is to play, providing him with the necessary repertoire of habits, beliefs, and values, the appropriate patterns of emotional response and the modes of perception, requisite skills and knowledge. It also provides persistence and culture (Chinoy, 1961).

Conformity to socialization is the way a person tends to have the same behaviors of a group of people he or she is attached to. Conformity and obedience to authority in socialization is responsible in shaping or bringing up a morally upright person. The impacts of this can have diverse influences on a individuals in the ways of his/her living. Therefore this paper is going to discuss on the issues of the impact that my socialization in conformity and obedience to authority and how has affected my life. The paper will also show how these issues influenced my attitudes towards the general ways of life, choice of occupation, and other important aspects in my life. The paper will then conclude by highlighting on how socialization affects individuals.

My first socialization came about when I was still a little kid. I started learning the outlooks, values, and measures needed off me as a member of my family and community. An example of this is when my mother used to guide me in treating other kids as equals and not to show any discriminatory remarks or any other immoral behaviors towards them. These aspects mould me into knowing that it was acceptable and in order to treat the people around me as brothers and sisters. Socialization also taught me to learn from them as they learn from me. In addition these aspects have been permanently put into my conscience as I still have these opinions to date.

My next step in socialization was in relatives, friends in the neighborhoods, friends at school and people who I interacted with directly. This stage comprised of schooling and learning to get conversant to the important behaviors as an individual in a small group of a bigger community.

In growing development wise my socialization comprised of ways of learning behavior in the several organizations and institution I went through that taught me how to develop my skills socially.

My anticipatory socialization on the other hand covered my social rehearsals for the future occupations that I intended to pursue and the societal relationships that would accompany them.

The choice of occupation in regards to socialization has been positive because I have passed through knowledge-based communities which have influenced the right choice of occupation and modeled my occupational requirements as well. In this capacity, and taking into consideration personal preference about profession and occupations there has been an evident enveloping social effects. “Thus, it is necessary to expand the standard view about the process of occupation choice by adding non pecuniary factors, influence of social networks and the role of information and guidance policies” (Chinoy, 1961). My choice of occupation therefore has been affected by socialization which includes family, friends, the society and economic aspects.

This process has had a major impact in my life as it has been responsible for the change of my social status. Re-socialization helped me to shade my previous ways of behaviors and come up with new ones to cope up with the ever changing world. “This again occurs throughout a human beings life cycle. Re-socialization can be an intense experience, with the individual experiencing a sharp break with their past making him or her need to learn and be exposed to radically different norms and values” (Schaefer & Lamm, 1992).

“Agents of socialization are the people and groups that influence our self-concept, emotions, attitudes, and behavior” (Chinoy, 1961). My family and friends have been on the fore front of determining my attitudes in regards to responsibility, choice of religion and determining my occupational goals. They did this through my education which is an important agent responsible for socializing people in specific values and skills in the community. This is also responsible for my choice of occupation as it shapes an individual towards that direction. They also influenced my choice of religion that is an important aspect in socialization as it makes people obedient to authority when they follow certain rules and principles of religion. My friends have also been very influential; this was brought out through peer groupings when we used to contribute to our social characteristics in the process influencing each other. It is also evident that socialization plays a major role in influencing emotions which comprise of romance and lust. These emotions are in turn responsible for marriage especially when love strikes in a social setting. In the event of such marriages the sustenance and child rearing will be based on the instilled social norms which were shaped by socializing.

Socialization has evidently influenced my life in the sense that it helped me conform to authority by being shaped towards the right direction from a young age. This brought me up as a morally upright person and also helped me in the selection of an occupation of choice. The realization of this was brought about by socializing with the right people who instill the right characters in individuals. On the other hand socialization can instill the wrong characters in individuals particularly when they socialize with bad characters. This is highlighted by Zimbardo (2007) who says that a good person can be changed by socialization if he/she is not in conformity with social norms. The author gives an example of “Palestine and Iraq, where young men and women become suicide bombers who were initially good people, (Zimbardo, 2007).

Therefore as shown in this paper, new inspirations are brought about by social influence which are instilled in an individual particularly when they are consistent from a young age. It is also true that social influence does not only support moral uprightness but can also produce bad social habits.

• Chinoy, M. (1961). Socialization. New York NY: Oxford University Press.
• Mathews, W. (2002). Society and socialization. Journal for socialization community development 24 (2), 62-69.
• Schaefer, D., & Lamm, T (1992). Re-socialization. Brisbane, QLD: John Wiley & Sons Australia Ltd.
• Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer Effect : Understanding how good people turn evil. New York: Random House.
• The Necessity of Anti-drug Activities in Newark
• The Drug Policy and Criminalization
• The Giddings State School Capital Offender Program
• Divorce: Advantages and Disadvantages
• Self-Reflection About Life Questions
• Chesapeake Colony: The Only Place to Be
• Learning to Ride. Personal Experiences
• Group and Individual Thinking: Mob Psychology
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, December 25). The Impact of Socialization on My Life. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-impact-of-socialization-on-my-life/

"The Impact of Socialization on My Life." IvyPanda , 25 Dec. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/the-impact-of-socialization-on-my-life/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'The Impact of Socialization on My Life'. 25 December.

IvyPanda . 2021. "The Impact of Socialization on My Life." December 25, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-impact-of-socialization-on-my-life/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Impact of Socialization on My Life." December 25, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-impact-of-socialization-on-my-life/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Impact of Socialization on My Life." December 25, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-impact-of-socialization-on-my-life/.

• Arts & Culture
• Science & Technology

Davis, California

Students talk about what friendships mean to them, how they balance social lives with academic life

Getting a degree might be the reason that students go through the college application process and stay at their university of choice for another four years, but it’s not the only thing that counts by the end of a student’s college journey. One area of life that students particularly try to maintain in college is a social life.

“ Socializing means having a life apart from school and all the other ‘adulting’ aspects,’” said second-year computer engineering major Aman Vinayak. “Having friends or a social circle just makes life a tad bit easier.”

Tiffany Kwan, a third-year transfer student and a managerial economics major, had positive things to say about socializing as well.

“Socializing is connecting with other human beings,” Kwan said. “[Socializing] is pretty important to me, because it is a way to de-stress from the difficulties of this school. It is an integral part of college because you are just constantly around new people, and when you are struggling it’s better to talk to people rather than keep everything to yourself.”

In the day and age of Snapchat and Instagram when students can virtually stay in touch with their friends by watching their Instagram stories, students still manage to find ways to take time out of their busy schedules to cultivate friendships and socialize.

“ I have deleted most of my social media so it’s all now face-to-face therefore, I don’t spend any energy on my devices wasting time and not even socializing,” Vinayak said. “I host guests at my house, go to events and that’s how I save time from not being on my devices and focus on school.”

When it comes to meeting people, Kwan found those who fall naturally into her schedule to be suitable companions.

“ I socialize with people who are in the same class as I am, or I use socializing as a break from studying,” Kwan said.

Does partying count as socializing? Different students have different thoughts.

“ I used to like to party a lot but not anymore,” Vinayak said. “There’s nothing much to it, if you see it’s just blacking out and making snapchat stories. Therefore, I refrain. I like being in smaller groups now as I am getting older. I want to strengthen my relationships rather than having a bunch of people who just know my name, and I can’t have a real conversation with, and who don’t even know much about my life.”

Kwan had similar views on the topic of partying and making genuine connections.

“ I feel like partying is not the best way to really get to know people, but rather just a way to let loose,” Kwan said.” I feel like the only way to really connect with people is to be able to have a conversation one-on-one with a person. That is the only way to really get to know what makes a person who they are today. Most people aren’t as willing to open up in a larger group.”

Staying on top of school work, socializing and still prioritizing some “alone time” might be challenging for a lot of college students, but students try to focus on their health while also focusing on academics.

“I prioritize my health and well-being [over socializing].” Kwan said. “[Having alone time] is very important to me, as I am not one who is able to be social all the time.”

Vinayak talked about his health and well being as well.

“ I do take quite a bit of me time,” Vinayak said. “It’s unlike me, but this year I have started to focus more on my health and studies, so I socialize quite a bit but retreat as soon as it starts to get overwhelming. I get bored easily so I like being alone sometimes in my thoughts and relaxing.”

Kwan seemed to find that making casual friends versus achieving coveted best friendship were two very different things.

“ I feel like I do easily make friends, but it is harder to find really close friends,” Kwan said. “Friendship is having a person to count on when you need someone to talk to. Also not turning your back on someone even during dark times.”

Vinayak talked about what friendship means to him.

“ Friendship means having someone to talk to apart from family and discussing things that may not make sense to anyone else other than you and your friends,” Vinayak said. “A companion who you can share these experiences away from home.”

If socializing and making friends is this important, it is evident that there must be a strategy as to where to find friendships.

“ I would consider [rushing a sorority] just because it would be a good way to make friends,” Kwan said. “Don’t be afraid to just go out and find some organization to make friends, because it is likely that there are numerous other people who are having the problems as you.”

Vinayak talked about her college social experience being different than that of high school.

“ Keep your ego aside and just go out and meet people,” Vinayak said. “College is a huge, huge place where you are bound to meet people who share the same likes and dislikes as you. It’s essential that you make friends as college is a whole different ball game than high school. Shit gets real out here.”

Written by: Rabiya Oberoi — [email protected]

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related Articles

Campus News

Arts & culture, science & tech, best of davis, diversity report, senior issue.

©2021, ASUCD. Designed by Creative Media.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

The Meaning of Life

Many major historical figures in philosophy have provided an answer to the question of what, if anything, makes life meaningful, although they typically have not put it in these terms (with such talk having arisen only in the past 250 years or so, on which see Landau 1997). Consider, for instance, Aristotle on the human function, Aquinas on the beatific vision, and Kant on the highest good. Relatedly, think about Koheleth, the presumed author of the Biblical book Ecclesiastes, describing life as “futility” and akin to “the pursuit of wind,” Nietzsche on nihilism, as well as Schopenhauer when he remarks that whenever we reach a goal we have longed for we discover “how vain and empty it is.” While these concepts have some bearing on happiness and virtue (and their opposites), they are straightforwardly construed (roughly) as accounts of which highly ranked purposes a person ought to realize that would make her life significant (if any would).

Despite the venerable pedigree, it is only since the 1980s or so that a distinct field of the meaning of life has been established in Anglo-American-Australasian philosophy, on which this survey focuses, and it is only in the past 20 years that debate with real depth and intricacy has appeared. Two decades ago analytic reflection on life’s meaning was described as a “backwater” compared to that on well-being or good character, and it was possible to cite nearly all the literature in a given critical discussion of the field (Metz 2002). Neither is true any longer. Anglo-American-Australasian philosophy of life’s meaning has become vibrant, such that there is now way too much literature to be able to cite comprehensively in this survey. To obtain focus, it tends to discuss books, influential essays, and more recent works, and it leaves aside contributions from other philosophical traditions (such as the Continental or African) and from non-philosophical fields (e.g., psychology or literature). This survey’s central aim is to acquaint the reader with current analytic approaches to life’s meaning, sketching major debates and pointing out neglected topics that merit further consideration.

When the topic of the meaning of life comes up, people tend to pose one of three questions: “What are you talking about?”, “What is the meaning of life?”, and “Is life in fact meaningful?”. The literature on life's meaning composed by those working in the analytic tradition (on which this entry focuses) can be usefully organized according to which question it seeks to answer. This survey starts off with recent work that addresses the first, abstract (or “meta”) question regarding the sense of talk of “life’s meaning,” i.e., that aims to clarify what we have in mind when inquiring into the meaning of life (section 1). Afterward, it considers texts that provide answers to the more substantive question about the nature of meaningfulness (sections 2–3). There is in the making a sub-field of applied meaning that parallels applied ethics, in which meaningfulness is considered in the context of particular cases or specific themes. Examples include downshifting (Levy 2005), implementing genetic enhancements (Agar 2013), making achievements (Bradford 2015), getting an education (Schinkel et al. 2015), interacting with research participants (Olson 2016), automating labor (Danaher 2017), and creating children (Ferracioli 2018). In contrast, this survey focuses nearly exclusively on contemporary normative-theoretical approaches to life’s meanining, that is, attempts to capture in a single, general principle all the variegated conditions that could confer meaning on life. Finally, this survey examines fresh arguments for the nihilist view that the conditions necessary for a meaningful life do not obtain for any of us, i.e., that all our lives are meaningless (section 4).

1. The Meaning of “Meaning”

2.1. god-centered views, 2.2. soul-centered views, 3.1. subjectivism, 3.2. objectivism, 3.3. rejecting god and a soul, 4. nihilism, works cited, classic works, collections, books for the general reader, other internet resources, related entries.

One of the field's aims consists of the systematic attempt to identify what people (essentially or characteristically) have in mind when they think about the topic of life’s meaning. For many in the field, terms such as “importance” and “significance” are synonyms of “meaningfulness” and so are insufficiently revealing, but there are those who draw a distinction between meaningfulness and significance (Singer 1996, 112–18; Belliotti 2019, 145–50, 186). There is also debate about how the concept of a meaningless life relates to the ideas of a life that is absurd (Nagel 1970, 1986, 214–23; Feinberg 1980; Belliotti 2019), futile (Trisel 2002), and not worth living (Landau 2017, 12–15; Matheson 2017).

A useful way to begin to get clear about what thinking about life’s meaning involves is to specify the bearer. Which life does the inquirer have in mind? A standard distinction to draw is between the meaning “in” life, where a human person is what can exhibit meaning, and the meaning “of” life in a narrow sense, where the human species as a whole is what can be meaningful or not. There has also been a bit of recent consideration of whether animals or human infants can have meaning in their lives, with most rejecting that possibility (e.g., Wong 2008, 131, 147; Fischer 2019, 1–24), but a handful of others beginning to make a case for it (Purves and Delon 2018; Thomas 2018). Also under-explored is the issue of whether groups, such as a people or an organization, can be bearers of meaning, and, if so, under what conditions.

Most analytic philosophers have been interested in meaning in life, that is, in the meaningfulness that a person’s life could exhibit, with comparatively few these days addressing the meaning of life in the narrow sense. Even those who believe that God is or would be central to life’s meaning have lately addressed how an individual’s life might be meaningful in virtue of God more often than how the human race might be. Although some have argued that the meaningfulness of human life as such merits inquiry to no less a degree (if not more) than the meaning in a life (Seachris 2013; Tartaglia 2015; cf. Trisel 2016), a large majority of the field has instead been interested in whether their lives as individual persons (and the lives of those they care about) are meaningful and how they could become more so.

Focusing on meaning in life, it is quite common to maintain that it is conceptually something good for its own sake or, relatedly, something that provides a basic reason for action (on which see Visak 2017). There are a few who have recently suggested otherwise, maintaining that there can be neutral or even undesirable kinds of meaning in a person’s life (e.g., Mawson 2016, 90, 193; Thomas 2018, 291, 294). However, these are outliers, with most analytic philosophers, and presumably laypeople, instead wanting to know when an individual’s life exhibits a certain kind of final value (or non-instrumental reason for action).

Another claim about which there is substantial consensus is that meaningfulness is not all or nothing and instead comes in degrees, such that some periods of life are more meaningful than others and that some lives as a whole are more meaningful than others. Note that one can coherently hold the view that some people’s lives are less meaningful (or even in a certain sense less “important”) than others, or are even meaningless (unimportant), and still maintain that people have an equal standing from a moral point of view. Consider a consequentialist moral principle according to which each individual counts for one in virtue of having a capacity for a meaningful life, or a Kantian approach according to which all people have a dignity in virtue of their capacity for autonomous decision-making, where meaning is a function of the exercise of this capacity. For both moral outlooks, we could be required to help people with relatively meaningless lives.

Yet another relatively uncontroversial element of the concept of meaningfulness in respect of individual persons is that it is logically distinct from happiness or rightness (emphasized in Wolf 2010, 2016). First, to ask whether someone’s life is meaningful is not one and the same as asking whether her life is pleasant or she is subjectively well off. A life in an experience machine or virtual reality device would surely be a happy one, but very few take it to be a prima facie candidate for meaningfulness (Nozick 1974: 42–45). Indeed, a number would say that one’s life logically could become meaningful precisely by sacrificing one’s well-being, e.g., by helping others at the expense of one’s self-interest. Second, asking whether a person’s existence over time is meaningful is not identical to considering whether she has been morally upright; there are intuitively ways to enhance meaning that have nothing to do with right action or moral virtue, such as making a scientific discovery or becoming an excellent dancer. Now, one might argue that a life would be meaningless if, or even because, it were unhappy or immoral, but that would be to posit a synthetic, substantive relationship between the concepts, far from indicating that speaking of “meaningfulness” is analytically a matter of connoting ideas regarding happiness or rightness. The question of what (if anything) makes a person’s life meaningful is conceptually distinct from the questions of what makes a life happy or moral, although it could turn out that the best answer to the former question appeals to an answer to one of the latter questions.

Supposing, then, that talk of “meaning in life” connotes something good for its own sake that can come in degrees and that is not analytically equivalent to happiness or rightness, what else does it involve? What more can we say about this final value, by definition? Most contemporary analytic philosophers would say that the relevant value is absent from spending time in an experience machine (but see Goetz 2012 for a different view) or living akin to Sisyphus, the mythic figure doomed by the Greek gods to roll a stone up a hill for eternity (famously discussed by Albert Camus and Taylor 1970). In addition, many would say that the relevant value is typified by the classic triad of “the good, the true, and the beautiful” (or would be under certain conditions). These terms are not to be taken literally, but instead are rough catchwords for beneficent relationships (love, collegiality, morality), intellectual reflection (wisdom, education, discoveries), and creativity (particularly the arts, but also potentially things like humor or gardening).

Pressing further, is there something that the values of the good, the true, the beautiful, and any other logically possible sources of meaning involve? There is as yet no consensus in the field. One salient view is that the concept of meaning in life is a cluster or amalgam of overlapping ideas, such as fulfilling higher-order purposes, meriting substantial esteem or admiration, having a noteworthy impact, transcending one’s animal nature, making sense, or exhibiting a compelling life-story (Markus 2003; Thomson 2003; Metz 2013, 24–35; Seachris 2013, 3–4; Mawson 2016). However, there are philosophers who maintain that something much more monistic is true of the concept, so that (nearly) all thought about meaningfulness in a person’s life is essentially about a single property. Suggestions include being devoted to or in awe of qualitatively superior goods (Taylor 1989, 3–24), transcending one’s limits (Levy 2005), or making a contribution (Martela 2016).

Recently there has been something of an “interpretive turn” in the field, one instance of which is the strong view that meaning-talk is logically about whether and how a life is intelligible within a wider frame of reference (Goldman 2018, 116–29; Seachris 2019; Thomas 2019; cf. Repp 2018). According to this approach, inquiring into life’s meaning is nothing other than seeking out sense-making information, perhaps a narrative about life or an explanation of its source and destiny. This analysis has the advantage of promising to unify a wide array of uses of the term “meaning.” However, it has the disadvantages of being unable to capture the intuitions that meaning in life is essentially good for its own sake (Landau 2017, 12–15), that it is not logically contradictory to maintain that an ineffable condition is what confers meaning on life (as per Cooper 2003, 126–42; Bennett-Hunter 2014; Waghorn 2014), and that often human actions themselves (as distinct from an interpretation of them), such as rescuing a child from a burning building, are what bear meaning.

Some thinkers have suggested that a complete analysis of the concept of life’s meaning should include what has been called “anti-matter” (Metz 2002, 805–07, 2013, 63–65, 71–73) or “anti-meaning” (Campbell and Nyholm 2015; Egerstrom 2015), conditions that reduce the meaningfulness of a life. The thought is that meaning is well represented by a bipolar scale, where there is a dimension of not merely positive conditions, but also negative ones. Gratuitous cruelty or destructiveness are prima facie candidates for actions that not merely fail to add meaning, but also subtract from any meaning one’s life might have had.

Despite the ongoing debates about how to analyze the concept of life’s meaning (or articulate the definition of the phrase “meaning in life”), the field remains in a good position to make progress on the other key questions posed above, viz., of what would make a life meaningful and whether any lives are in fact meaningful. A certain amount of common ground is provided by the point that meaningfulness at least involves a gradient final value in a person’s life that is conceptually distinct from happiness and rightness, with exemplars of it potentially being the good, the true, and the beautiful. The rest of this discussion addresses philosophical attempts to capture the nature of this value theoretically and to ascertain whether it exists in at least some of our lives.

2. Supernaturalism

Most analytic philosophers writing on meaning in life have been trying to develop and evaluate theories, i.e., fundamental and general principles, that are meant to capture all the particular ways that a life could obtain meaning. As in moral philosophy, there are recognizable “anti-theorists,” i.e., those who maintain that there is too much pluralism among meaning conditions to be able to unify them in the form of a principle (e.g., Kekes 2000; Hosseini 2015). Arguably, though, the systematic search for unity is too nascent to be able to draw a firm conclusion about whether it is available.

The theories are standardly divided on a metaphysical basis, that is, in terms of which kinds of properties are held to constitute the meaning. Supernaturalist theories are views according to which a spiritual realm is central to meaning in life. Most Western philosophers have conceived of the spiritual in terms of God or a soul as commonly understood in the Abrahamic faiths (but see Mulgan 2015 for discussion of meaning in the context of a God uninterested in us). In contrast, naturalist theories are views that the physical world as known particularly well by the scientific method is central to life’s meaning.

There is logical space for a non-naturalist theory, according to which central to meaning is an abstract property that is neither spiritual nor physical. However, only scant attention has been paid to this possibility in the recent Anglo-American-Australasian literature (Audi 2005).

It is important to note that supernaturalism, a claim that God (or a soul) would confer meaning on a life, is logically distinct from theism, the claim that God (or a soul) exists. Although most who hold supernaturalism also hold theism, one could accept the former without the latter (as Camus more or less did), committing one to the view that life is meaningless or at least lacks substantial meaning. Similarly, while most naturalists are atheists, it is not contradictory to maintain that God exists but has nothing to do with meaning in life or perhaps even detracts from it. Although these combinations of positions are logically possible, some of them might be substantively implausible. The field could benefit from discussion of the comparative attractiveness of various combinations of evaluative claims about what would make life meaningful and metaphysical claims about whether spiritual conditions exist.

Over the past 15 years or so, two different types of supernaturalism have become distinguished on a regular basis (Metz 2019). That is true not only in the literature on life’s meaning, but also in that on the related pro-theism/anti-theism debate, about whether it would be desirable for God or a soul to exist (e.g., Kahane 2011; Kraay 2018; Lougheed 2020). On the one hand, there is extreme supernaturalism, according to which spiritual conditions are necessary for any meaning in life. If neither God nor a soul exists, then, by this view, everyone’s life is meaningless. On the other hand, there is moderate supernaturalism, according to which spiritual conditions are necessary for a great or ultimate meaning in life, although not meaning in life as such. If neither God nor a soul exists, then, by this view, everyone’s life could have some meaning, or even be meaningful, but no one’s life could exhibit the most desirable meaning. For a moderate supernaturalist, God or a soul would substantially enhance meaningfulness or be a major contributory condition for it.

There are a variety of ways that great or ultimate meaning has been described, sometimes quantitatively as “infinite” (Mawson 2016), qualitatively as “deeper” (Swinburne 2016), relationally as “unlimited” (Nozick 1981, 618–19; cf. Waghorn 2014), temporally as “eternal” (Cottingham 2016), and perspectivally as “from the point of view of the universe” (Benatar 2017). There has been no reflection as yet on the crucial question of how these distinctions might bear on each another, for instance, on whether some are more basic than others or some are more valuable than others.

Cross-cutting the extreme/moderate distinction is one between God-centered theories and soul-centered ones. According to the former, some kind of connection with God (understood to be a spiritual person who is all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful and who is the ground of the physical universe) constitutes meaning in life, even if one lacks a soul (construed as an immortal, spiritual substance that contains one’s identity). In contrast, by the latter, having a soul and putting it into a certain state is what makes life meaningful, even if God does not exist. Many supernaturalists of course believe that God and a soul are jointly necessary for a (greatly) meaningful existence. However, the simpler view, that only one of them is necessary, is common, and sometimes arguments proffered for the complex view fail to support it any more than the simpler one.

The most influential God-based account of meaning in life has been the extreme view that one’s existence is significant if and only if one fulfills a purpose God has assigned. The familiar idea is that God has a plan for the universe and that one’s life is meaningful just to the degree that one helps God realize this plan, perhaps in a particular way that God wants one to do so. If a person failed to do what God intends her to do with her life (or if God does not even exist), then, on the current view, her life would be meaningless.

Thinkers differ over what it is about God’s purpose that might make it uniquely able to confer meaning on human lives, but the most influential argument has been that only God’s purpose could be the source of invariant moral rules (Davis 1987, 296, 304–05; Moreland 1987, 124–29; Craig 1994/2013, 161–67) or of objective values more generally (Cottingham 2005, 37–57), where a lack of such would render our lives nonsensical. According to this argument, lower goods such as animal pleasure or desire satisfaction could exist without God, but higher ones pertaining to meaning in life, particularly moral virtue, could not. However, critics point to many non-moral sources of meaning in life (e.g., Kekes 2000; Wolf 2010), with one arguing that a universal moral code is not necessary for meaning in life, even if, say, beneficent actions are (Ellin 1995, 327). In addition, there are a variety of naturalist and non-naturalist accounts of objective morality––and of value more generally––on offer these days, so that it is not clear that it must have a supernatural source in God’s will.

One recurrent objection to the idea that God’s purpose could make life meaningful is that if God had created us with a purpose in mind, then God would have degraded us and thereby undercut the possibility of us obtaining meaning from fulfilling the purpose. The objection harks back to Jean-Paul Sartre, but in the analytic literature it appears that Kurt Baier was the first to articulate it (1957/2000, 118–20; see also Murphy 1982, 14–15; Singer 1996, 29; Kahane 2011; Lougheed 2020, 121–41). Sometimes the concern is the threat of punishment God would make so that we do God’s bidding, while other times it is that the source of meaning would be constrictive and not up to us, and still other times it is that our dignity would be maligned simply by having been created with a certain end in mind (for some replies to such concerns, see Hanfling 1987, 45–46; Cottingham 2005, 37–57; Lougheed 2020, 111–21).

There is a different argument for an extreme God-based view that focuses less on God as purposive and more on God as infinite, unlimited, or ineffable, which Robert Nozick first articulated with care (Nozick 1981, 594–618; see also Bennett-Hunter 2014; Waghorn 2014). The core idea is that for a finite condition to be meaningful, it must obtain its meaning from another condition that has meaning. So, if one’s life is meaningful, it might be so in virtue of being married to a person, who is important. Being finite, the spouse must obtain his or her importance from elsewhere, perhaps from the sort of work he or she does. This work also must obtain its meaning by being related to something else that is meaningful, and so on. A regress on meaningful conditions is present, and the suggestion is that the regress can terminate only in something so all-encompassing that it need not (indeed, cannot) go beyond itself to obtain meaning from anything else. And that is God. The standard objection to this relational rationale is that a finite condition could be meaningful without obtaining its meaning from another meaningful condition. Perhaps it could be meaningful in itself, without being connected to something beyond it, or maybe it could obtain its meaning by being related to something else that is beautiful or otherwise valuable for its own sake but not meaningful (Nozick 1989, 167–68; Thomson 2003, 25–26, 48).

A serious concern for any extreme God-based view is the existence of apparent counterexamples. If we think of the stereotypical lives of Albert Einstein, Mother Teresa, and Pablo Picasso, they seem meaningful even if we suppose there is no all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good spiritual person who is the ground of the physical world (e.g., Wielenberg 2005, 31–37, 49–50; Landau 2017). Even religiously inclined philosophers have found this hard to deny these days (Quinn 2000, 58; Audi 2005; Mawson 2016, 5; Williams 2020, 132–34).

Largely for that reason, contemporary supernaturalists have tended to opt for moderation, that is, to maintain that God would greatly enhance the meaning in our lives, even if some meaning would be possible in a world without God. One approach is to invoke the relational argument to show that God is necessary, not for any meaning whatsoever, but rather for an ultimate meaning. “Limited transcendence, the transcending of our limits so as to connect with a wider context of value which itself is limited, does give our lives meaning––but a limited one. We may thirst for more” (Nozick 1981, 618). Another angle is to appeal to playing a role in God’s plan, again to claim, not that it is essential for meaning as such, but rather for “a cosmic significance....intead of a significance very limited in time and space” (Swinburne 2016, 154; see also Quinn 2000; Cottingham 2016, 131). Another rationale is that by fulfilling God’s purpose, we would meaningfully please God, a perfect person, as well as be remembered favorably by God forever (Cottingham 2016, 135; Williams 2020, 21–22, 29, 101, 108). Still another argument is that only with God could the deepest desires of human nature be satisfied (e.g., Goetz 2012; Seachris 2013, 20; Cottingham 2016, 127, 136), even if more surface desires could be satisfied without God.

In reply to such rationales for a moderate supernaturalism, there has been the suggestion that it is precisely by virtue of being alone in the universe that our lives would be particularly significant; otherwise, God’s greatness would overshadow us (Kahane 2014). There has also been the response that, with the opportunity for greater meaning from God would also come that for greater anti-meaning, so that it is not clear that a world with God would offer a net gain in respect of meaning (Metz 2019, 34–35). For example, if pleasing God would greatly enhance meaning in our lives, then presumably displeasing God would greatly reduce it and to a comparable degree. In addition, there are arguments for extreme naturalism (or its “anti-theist” cousin) mentioned below (sub-section 3.3).

Notice that none of the above arguments for supernaturalism appeals to the prospect of eternal life (at least not explicitly). Arguments that do make such an appeal are soul-centered, holding that meaning in life mainly comes from having an immortal, spiritual substance that is contiguous with one’s body when it is alive and that will forever outlive its death. Some think of the afterlife in terms of one’s soul entering a transcendent, spiritual realm (Heaven), while others conceive of one’s soul getting reincarnated into another body on Earth. According to the extreme version, if one has a soul but fails to put it in the right state (or if one lacks a soul altogether), then one’s life is meaningless.

There are three prominent arguments for an extreme soul-based perspective. One argument, made famous by Leo Tolstoy, is the suggestion that for life to be meaningful something must be worth doing, that something is worth doing only if it will make a permanent difference to the world, and that making a permanent difference requires being immortal (see also Hanfling 1987, 22–24; Morris 1992, 26; Craig 1994). Critics most often appeal to counterexamples, suggesting for instance that it is surely worth your time and effort to help prevent people from suffering, even if you and they are mortal. Indeed, some have gone on the offensive and argued that helping people is worth the sacrifice only if and because they are mortal, for otherwise they could invariably be compensated in an afterlife (e.g., Wielenberg 2005, 91–94). Another recent and interesting criticism is that the major motivations for the claim that nothing matters now if one day it will end are incoherent (Greene 2021).

A second argument for the view that life would be meaningless without a soul is that it is necessary for justice to be done, which, in turn, is necessary for a meaningful life. Life seems nonsensical when the wicked flourish and the righteous suffer, at least supposing there is no other world in which these injustices will be rectified, whether by God or a Karmic force. Something like this argument can be found in Ecclesiastes, and it continues to be defended (e.g., Davis 1987; Craig 1994). However, even granting that an afterlife is required for perfectly just outcomes, it is far from obvious that an eternal afterlife is necessary for them, and, then, there is the suggestion that some lives, such as Mandela’s, have been meaningful precisely in virtue of encountering injustice and fighting it.

A third argument for thinking that having a soul is essential for any meaning is that it is required to have the sort of free will without which our lives would be meaningless. Immanuel Kant is known for having maintained that if we were merely physical beings, subjected to the laws of nature like everything else in the material world, then we could not act for moral reasons and hence would be unimportant. More recently, one theologian has eloquently put the point in religious terms: “The moral spirit finds the meaning of life in choice. It finds it in that which proceeds from man and remains with him as his inner essence rather than in the accidents of circumstances turns of external fortune....(W)henever a human being rubs the lamp of his moral conscience, a Spirit does appear. This Spirit is God....It is in the ‘Thou must’ of God and man’s ‘I can’ that the divine image of God in human life is contained” (Swenson 1949/2000, 27–28). Notice that, even if moral norms did not spring from God’s commands, the logic of the argument entails that one’s life could be meaningful, so long as one had the inherent ability to make the morally correct choice in any situation. That, in turn, arguably requires something non-physical about one’s self, so as to be able to overcome whichever physical laws and forces one might confront. The standard objection to this reasoning is to advance a compatibilism about having a determined physical nature and being able to act for moral reasons (e.g., Arpaly 2006; Fischer 2009, 145–77). It is also worth wondering whether, if one had to have a spiritual essence in order to make free choices, it would have to be one that never perished.

Like God-centered theorists, many soul-centered theorists these days advance a moderate view, accepting that some meaning in life would be possible without immortality, but arguing that a much greater meaning would be possible with it. Granting that Einstein, Mandela, and Picasso had somewhat meaningful lives despite not having survived the deaths of their bodies (as per, e.g., Trisel 2004; Wolf 2015, 89–140; Landau 2017), there remains a powerful thought: more is better. If a finite life with the good, the true, and the beautiful has meaning in it to some degree, then surely it would have all the more meaning if it exhibited such higher values––including a relationship with God––for an eternity (Cottingham 2016, 132–35; Mawson 2016, 2019, 52–53; Williams 2020, 112–34; cf. Benatar 2017, 35–63). One objection to this reasoning is that the infinity of meaning that would be possible with a soul would be “too big,” rendering it difficult for the moderate supernaturalist to make sense of the intution that a finite life such as Einstein’s can indeed count as meaningful by comparison (Metz 2019, 30–31; cf. Mawson 2019, 53–54). More common, though, is the objection that an eternal life would include anti-meaning of various kinds, such as boredom and repetition, discussed below in the context of extreme naturalism (sub-section 3.3).

3. Naturalism

Recall that naturalism is the view that a physical life is central to life’s meaning, that even if there is no spiritual realm, a substantially meaningful life is possible. Like supernaturalism, contemporary naturalism admits of two distinguishable variants, moderate and extreme (Metz 2019). The moderate version is that, while a genuinely meaningful life could be had in a purely physical universe as known well by science, a somewhat more meaningful life would be possible if a spiritual realm also existed. God or a soul could enhance meaning in life, although they would not be major contributors. The extreme version of naturalism is the view that it would be better in respect of life’s meaning if there were no spiritual realm. From this perspective, God or a soul would be anti-matter, i.e., would detract from the meaning available to us, making a purely physical world (even if not this particular one) preferable.

Cross-cutting the moderate/extreme distinction is that between subjectivism and objectivism, which are theoretical accounts of the nature of meaningfulness insofar as it is physical. They differ in terms of the extent to which the human mind constitutes meaning and whether there are conditions of meaning that are invariant among human beings. Subjectivists believe that there are no invariant standards of meaning because meaning is relative to the subject, i.e., depends on an individual’s pro-attitudes such as her particular desires or ends, which are not shared by everyone. Roughly, something is meaningful for a person if she strongly wants it or intends to seek it out and she gets it. Objectivists maintain, in contrast, that there are some invariant standards for meaning because meaning is at least partly mind-independent, i.e., obtains not merely in virtue of being the object of anyone’s mental states. Here, something is meaningful (partially) because of its intrinsic nature, in the sense of being independent of whether it is wanted or intended; meaning is instead (to some extent) the sort of thing that merits these reactions.

There is logical space for an orthogonal view, according to which there are invariant standards of meaningfulness constituted by what all human beings would converge on from a certain standpoint. However, it has not been much of a player in the field (Darwall 1983, 164–66).

According to this version of naturalism, meaning in life varies from person to person, depending on each one’s variable pro-attitudes. Common instances are views that one’s life is more meaningful, the more one gets what one happens to want strongly, achieves one’s highly ranked goals, or does what one believes to be really important (Trisel 2002; Hooker 2008). One influential subjectivist has recently maintained that the relevant mental state is caring or loving, so that life is meaningful just to the extent that one cares about or loves something (Frankfurt 1988, 80–94, 2004). Another recent proposal is that meaningfulness consists of “an active engagement and affirmation that vivifies the person who has freely created or accepted and now promotes and nurtures the projects of her highest concern” (Belliotti 2019, 183).

Subjectivism was dominant in the middle of the twentieth century, when positivism, noncognitivism, existentialism, and Humeanism were influential (Ayer 1947; Hare 1957; Barnes 1967; Taylor 1970; Williams 1976). However, in the last quarter of the twentieth century, inference to the best explanation and reflective equilibrium became accepted forms of normative argumentation and were frequently used to defend claims about the existence and nature of objective value (or of “external reasons,” ones obtaining independently of one’s extant attitudes). As a result, subjectivism about meaning lost its dominance. Those who continue to hold subjectivism often remain suspicious of attempts to justify beliefs about objective value (e.g., Trisel 2002, 73, 79, 2004, 378–79; Frankfurt 2004, 47–48, 55–57; Wong 2008, 138–39; Evers 2017, 32, 36; Svensson 2017, 54). Theorists are moved to accept subjectivism typically because the alternatives are unpalatable; they are reasonably sure that meaning in life obtains for some people, but do not see how it could be grounded on something independent of the mind, whether it be the natural or the supernatural (or the non-natural). In contrast to these possibilities, it appears straightforward to account for what is meaningful in terms of what people find meaningful or what people want out of their lives. Wide-ranging meta-ethical debates in epistemology, metaphysics, and the philosophy of language are necessary to address this rationale for subjectivism.

There is a cluster of other, more circumscribed arguments for subjectivism, according to which this theory best explains certain intuitive features of meaning in life. For one, subjectivism seems plausible since it is reasonable to think that a meaningful life is an authentic one (Frankfurt 1988, 80–94). If a person’s life is significant insofar as she is true to herself or her deepest nature, then we have some reason to believe that meaning simply is a function of those matters for which the person cares. For another, it is uncontroversial that often meaning comes from losing oneself, i.e., in becoming absorbed in an activity or experience, as opposed to being bored by it or finding it frustrating (Frankfurt 1988, 80–94; Belliotti 2019, 162–70). Work that concentrates the mind and relationships that are engrossing seem central to meaning and to be so because of the subjective elements involved. For a third, meaning is often taken to be something that makes life worth continuing for a specific person, i.e., that gives her a reason to get out of bed in the morning, which subjectivism is thought to account for best (Williams 1976; Svensson 2017; Calhoun 2018).

Critics maintain that these arguments are vulnerable to a common objection: they neglect the role of objective value (or an external reason) in realizing oneself, losing oneself, and having a reason to live (Taylor 1989, 1992; Wolf 2010, 2015, 89–140). One is not really being true to oneself, losing oneself in a meaningful way, or having a genuine reason to live insofar as one, say, successfully maintains 3,732 hairs on one’s head (Taylor 1992, 36), cultivates one’s prowess at long-distance spitting (Wolf 2010, 104), collects a big ball of string (Wolf 2010, 104), or, well, eats one’s own excrement (Wielenberg 2005, 22). The counterexamples suggest that subjective conditions are insufficient to ground meaning in life; there seem to be certain actions, relationships, and states that are objectively valuable (but see Evers 2017, 30–32) and toward which one’s pro-attitudes ought to be oriented, if meaning is to accrue.

So say objectivists, but subjectivists feel the pull of the point and usually seek to avoid the counterexamples, lest they have to bite the bullet by accepting the meaningfulness of maintaining 3,732 hairs on one’s head and all the rest (for some who do, see Svensson 2017, 54–55; Belliotti 2019, 181–83). One important strategy is to suggest that subjectivists can avoid the counterexamples by appealing to the right sort of pro-attitude. Instead of whatever an individual happens to want, perhaps the relevant mental state is an emotional-perceptual one of seeing-as (Alexis 2011; cf. Hosseini 2015, 47–66), a “categorical” desire, that is, an intrinsic desire constitutive of one’s identity that one takes to make life worth continuing (Svensson 2017), or a judgment that one has a good reason to value something highly for its own sake (Calhoun 2018). Even here, though, objectivists will argue that it might “appear that whatever the will chooses to treat as a good reason to engage itself is, for the will, a good reason. But the will itself....craves objective reasons; and often it could not go forward unless it thought it had them” (Wiggins 1988, 136). And without any appeal to objectivity, it is perhaps likely that counterexamples would resurface.

Another subjectivist strategy by which to deal with the counterexamples is the attempt to ground meaningfulness, not on the pro-attitudes of an individual valuer, but on those of a group (Darwall 1983, 164–66; Brogaard and Smith 2005; Wong 2008). Does such an intersubjective move avoid (more of) the counterexamples? If so, does it do so more plausibly than an objective theory?

Objective naturalists believe that meaning in life is constituted at least in part by something physical beyond merely the fact that it is the object of a pro-attitude. Obtaining the object of some emotion, desire, or judgment is not sufficient for meaningfulness, on this view. Instead, there are certain conditions of the material world that could confer meaning on anyone’s life, not merely because they are viewed as meaningful, wanted for their own sake, or believed to be choiceworthy, but instead (at least partially) because they are inherently worthwhile or valuable in themselves.

Morality (the good), enquiry (the true), and creativity (the beautiful) are widely held instances of activities that confer meaning on life, while trimming toenails and eating snow––along with the counterexamples to subjectivism above––are not. Objectivism is widely thought to be a powerful general explanation of these particular judgments: the former are meaningful not merely because some agent (whether it is an individual, her society, or even God) cares about them or judges them to be worth doing, while the latter simply lack significance and cannot obtain it even if some agent does care about them or judge them to be worth doing. From an objective perspective, it is possible for an individual to care about the wrong thing or to be mistaken that something is worthwhile, and not merely because of something she cares about all the more or judges to be still more choiceworthy. Of course, meta-ethical debates about the existence and nature of value are again relevant to appraising this rationale.

Some objectivists think that being the object of a person’s mental states plays no constitutive role in making that person’s life meaningful, although they of course contend that it often plays an instrumental role––liking a certain activity, after all, is likely to motivate one to do it. Relatively few objectivists are “pure” in that way, although consequentialists do stand out as clear instances (e.g., Singer 1995; Smuts 2018, 75–99). Most objectivists instead try to account for the above intuitions driving subjectivism by holding that a life is more meaningful, not merely because of objective factors, but also in part because of propositional attitudes such as cognition, conation, and emotion. Particularly influential has been Susan Wolf’s hybrid view, captured by this pithy slogan: “Meaning arises when subjective attraction meets objective attractiveness” (Wolf 2015, 112; see also Kekes 1986, 2000; Wiggins 1988; Raz 2001, 10–40; Mintoff 2008; Wolf 2010, 2016; Fischer 2019, 9–23; Belshaw 2021, 160–81). This theory implies that no meaning accrues to one’s life if one believes in, is satisfied by, or cares about a project that is not truly worthwhile, or if one takes up a truly worthwhile project but fails to judge it important, be satisfied by it, or care about it. A related approach is that, while subjective attraction is not necessary for meaning, it could enhance it (e.g., Audi 2005, 344; Metz 2013, 183–84, 196–98, 220–25). For instance, a stereotypical Mother Teresa who is bored by and alienated from her substantial charity work might have a somewhat significant existence because of it, even if she would have an even more significant existence if she felt pride in it or identified with it.

There have been several attempts to capture theoretically what all objectively attractive, inherently worthwhile, or finally valuable conditions have in common insofar as they bear on meaning in a person’s life. Over the past few decades, one encounters the proposals that objectively meaningful conditions are just those that involve: positively connecting with organic unity beyond oneself (Nozick 1981, 594–619); being creative (Taylor 1987; Matheson 2018); living an emotional life (Solomon 1993; cf. Williams 2020, 56–78); promoting good consequences, such as improving the quality of life of oneself and others (Singer 1995; Audi 2005; Smuts 2018, 75–99); exercising or fostering rational nature in exceptional ways (Smith 1997, 179–221; Gewirth 1998, 177–82; Metz 2013, 222–36); progressing toward ends that can never be fully realized because one’s knowledge of them changes as one approaches them (Levy 2005); realizing goals that are transcendent for being long-lasting in duration and broad in scope (Mintoff 2008); living virtuously (May 2015, 61–138; McPherson 2020); and loving what is worth loving (Wolf 2016). There is as yet no convergence in the field on one, or even a small cluster, of these accounts.

One feature of a large majority of the above naturalist theories is that they are aggregative or additive, objectionably treating a life as a mere “container” of bits of life that are meaningful considered in isolation from other bits (Brännmark 2003, 330). It has become increasingly common for philosophers of life’s meaning, especially objectivists, to hold that life as a whole, or at least long stretches of it, can substantially affect its meaningfulness beyond the amount of meaning (if any) in its parts.

For instance, a life that has lots of beneficence and otherwise intuitively meaning-conferring conditions but that is also extremely repetitive (à la the movie Groundhog Day ) is less than maximally meaningful (Taylor 1987; Blumenfeld 2009). Furthermore, a life that not only avoids repetition but also ends with a substantial amount of meaningful (or otherwise desirable) parts seems to have more meaning overall than one that has the same amount of meaningful (desirable) parts but ends with few or none of them (Kamm 2013, 18–22; Dorsey 2015). Still more, a life in which its meaningless (or otherwise undesirable parts) cause its meaningful (desirable) parts to come about through a process of personal growth seems meaningful in virtue of this redemptive pattern, “good life-story,” or narrative self-expression (Taylor 1989, 48–51; Wong 2008; Fischer 2009, 145–77; Kauppinen 2012; May 2015, 61–138; Velleman 2015, 141–73). These three cases suggest that meaning can inhere in life as a whole, that is, in the relationships between its parts, and not merely in the parts considered in isolation. However, some would maintain that it is, strictly speaking, the story that is or could be told of a life that matters, not so much the life-story qua relations between events themselves (de Bres 2018).

There are pure or extreme versions of holism present in the literature, according to which the only possible bearer of meaning in life is a person’s life as a whole, and not any isolated activities, relationships, or states (Taylor 1989, 48–51; Tabensky 2003; Levinson 2004). A salient argument for this position is that judgments of the meaningfulness of a part of someone’s life are merely provisional, open to revision upon considering how they fit into a wider perspective. So, for example, it would initially appear that taking an ax away from a madman and thereby protecting innocent parties confers some meaning on one’s life, but one might well revise that judgment upon learning that the intention behind it was merely to steal an ax, not to save lives, or that the madman then took out a machine gun, causing much more harm than his ax would have. It is worth considering how far this sort of case is generalizable, and, if it can be to a substantial extent, whether that provides strong evidence that only life as a whole can exhibit meaningfulness.

Perhaps most objectivists would, at least upon reflection, accept that both the parts of a life and the whole-life relationships among the parts can exhibit meaning. Supposing there are two bearers of meaning in a life, important questions arise. One is whether a certain narrative can be meaningful even if its parts are not, while a second is whether the meaningfulness of a part increases if it is an aspect of a meaningful whole (on which see Brännmark 2003), and a third is whether there is anything revealing to say about how to make tradeoffs between the parts and whole in cases where one must choose between them (Blumenfeld 2009 appears to assign lexical priority to the whole).

Naturalists until recently had been largely concerned to show that meaning in life is possible without God or a soul; they have not spent much time considering how such spiritual conditions might enhance meaning, but have, in moderate fashion, tended to leave that possibility open (an exception is Hooker 2008). Lately, however, an extreme form of naturalism has arisen, according to which our lives would probably, if not unavoidably, have less meaning in a world with God or a soul than in one without. Although such an approach was voiced early on by Baier (1957), it is really in the past decade or so that this “anti-theist” position has become widely and intricately discussed.

One rationale, mentioned above as an objection to the view that God’s purpose constitutes meaning in life, has also been deployed to argue that the existence of God as such would necessarily reduce meaning, that is, would consist of anti-matter. It is the idea that master/servant and parent/child analogies so prominent in the monotheist religious traditions reveal something about our status in a world where there is a qualitatively higher being who has created us with certain ends in mind: our independence or dignity as adult persons would be violated (e.g., Baier 1957/2000, 118–20; Kahane 2011, 681–85; Lougheed 2020, 121–41). One interesting objection to this reasoning has been to accept that God’s existence is necessarily incompatible with the sort of meaning that would come (roughly stated) from being one’s own boss, but to argue that God would also make greater sorts of meaning available, offering a net gain to us (Mawson 2016, 110–58).

Another salient argument for thinking that God would detract from meaning in life appeals to the value of privacy (Kahane 2011, 681–85; Lougheed 2020, 55–110). God’s omniscience would unavoidably make it impossible for us to control another person’s access to the most intimate details about ourselves, which, for some, amounts to a less meaningful life than one with such control. Beyond questioning the value of our privacy in relation to God, one thought-provoking criticism has been to suggest that, if a lack of privacy really would substantially reduce meaning in our lives, then God, qua morally perfect person, would simply avoid knowing everything about us (Tooley 2018). Lacking complete knowledge of our mental states would be compatible with describing God as “omniscient,” so the criticism goes, insofar as that is plausibly understood as having as much knowledge as is morally permissible.

Turn, now, to major arguments for thinking that having a soul would reduce life’s meaning, so that if one wants a maximally meaningful life, one should prefer a purely physical world, or at least one in which people are mortal. First and foremost, there has been the argument that an immortal life could not avoid becoming boring (Williams 1973), rendering life pointless according to many subjective and objective theories. The literature on this topic has become enormous, with the central reply being that immortality need not get boring (for more recent discussions, see Fischer 2009, 79–101, 2019, 117–42; Mawson 2019, 51–52; Williams 2020, 30–41, 123–29; Belshaw 2021, 182–97). However, it might also be worth questioning whether boredom is sufficient for meaninglessness. Suppose, for instance, that one volunteers to be bored so that many others will not be bored; perhaps this would be a meaningful sacrifice to make. Being bored for an eternity would not be blissful or even satisfying, to be sure, but if it served the function of preventing others from being bored for an eternity, would it be meaningful (at least to some degree)? If, as is commonly held, sacrificing one’s life could be meaningful, why not also sacrificing one’s liveliness?

Another reason given to reject eternal life is that it would become repetitive, which would substantially drain it of meaning (Scarre 2007, 54–55; May 2009, 46–47, 64–65, 71; Smuts 2011, 142–44; cf. Blumenfeld 2009). If, as it appears, there are only a finite number of actions one could perform, relationships one could have, and states one could be in during an eternity, one would have to end up doing the same things again. Even though one’s activities might be more valuable than rolling a stone up a hill forever à la Sisyphus, the prospect of doing them over and over again forever is disheartening for many. To be sure, one might not remember having done them before and hence could avoid boredom, but for some philosophers that would make it all the worse, akin to having dementia and forgetting that one has told the same stories. Others, however, still find meaning in such a life (e.g., Belshaw 2021, 197, 205n41).

A third meaning-based argument against immortality invokes considerations of narrative. If the pattern of one’s life as a whole substantially matters, and if a proper pattern would include a beginning, a middle, and an end, it appears that a life that never ends would lack the relevant narrative structure. “Because it would drag on endlessly, it would, sooner or later, just be a string of events lacking all form....With immortality, the novel never ends....How meaningful can such a novel be?” (May 2009, 68, 72; see also Scarre 2007, 58–60). Notice that this objection is distinct from considerations of boredom and repetition (which concern novelty ); even if one were stimulated and active, and even if one found a way not to repeat one’s life in the course of eternity, an immortal life would appear to lack shape. In reply, some reject the idea that a meaningful life must be akin to a novel, and intead opt for narrativity in the form of something like a string of short stories that build on each other (Fischer 2009, 145–77, 2019, 101–16). Others, though, have sought to show that eternity could still be novel-like, deeming the sort of ending that matters to be a function of what the content is and how it relates to the content that came before (e.g., Seachris 2011; Williams 2020, 112–19).

There have been additional objections to immortality as undercutting meaningfulness, but they are prima facie less powerful than the previous three in that, if sound, they arguably show that an eternal life would have a cost, but probably not one that would utterly occlude the prospect of meaning in it. For example, there have been the suggestions that eternal lives would lack a sense of preciousness and urgency (Nussbaum 1989, 339; Kass 2002, 266–67), could not exemplify virtues such as courageously risking one’s life for others (Kass 2002, 267–68; Wielenberg 2005, 91–94), and could not obtain meaning from sustaining or saving others’ lives (Nussbaum 1989, 338; Wielenberg 2005, 91–94). Note that at least the first two rationales turn substantially on the belief in immortality, not quite immortality itself: if one were immortal but forgot that one is or did not know that at all, then one could appreciate life and obtain much of the virtue of courage (and, conversely, if one were not immortal, but thought that one is, then, by the logic of these arguments, one would fail to appreciate limits and be unable to exemplify courage).

The previous two sections addressed theoretical accounts of what would confer meaning on a human person’s life. Although these theories do not imply that some people’s lives are in fact meaningful, that has been the presumption of a very large majority of those who have advanced them. Much of the procedure has been to suppose that many lives have had meaning in them and then to consider in virtue of what they have or otherwise could. However, there are nihilist (or pessimist) perspectives that question this supposition. According to nihilism (pessimism), what would make a life meaningful in principle cannot obtain for any of us.

One straightforward rationale for nihilism is the combination of extreme supernaturalism about what makes life meaningful and atheism about whether a spiritual realm exists. If you believe that God or a soul is necessary for meaning in life, and if you believe that neither is real, then you are committed to nihilism, to the denial that life can have any meaning. Athough this rationale for nihilism was prominent in the modern era (and was more or less Camus’ position), it has been on the wane in analytic philosophical circles, as extreme supernaturalism has been eclipsed by the moderate variety.

The most common rationales for nihilism these days do not appeal to supernaturalism, or at least not explicitly. One cluster of ideas appeals to what meta-ethicists call “error theory,” the view that evaluative claims (in this case about meaning in life, or about morality qua necessary for meaning) characteristically posit objectively real or universally justified values, but that such values do not exist. According to one version, value judgments often analytically include a claim to objectivity but there is no reason to think that objective values exist, as they “would be entities or qualities or relations of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe” (Mackie 1977/1990, 38). According to a second version, life would be meaningless if there were no set of moral standards that could be fully justified to all rational enquirers, but it so happens that such standards cannot exist for persons who can always reasonably question a given claim (Murphy 1982, 12–17). According to a third, we hold certain beliefs about the objectivity and universality of morality and related values such as meaning because they were evolutionarily advantageous to our ancestors, not because they are true. Humans have been “deceived by their genes into thinking that there is a distinterested, objective morality binding upon them, which all should obey” (Ruse and Wilson 1986, 179; cf. Street 2015). One must draw on the intricate work in meta-ethics that has been underway for the past several decades in order to appraise these arguments.

In contrast to error-theoretic arguments for nihilism, there are rationales for it accepting that objective values exist but denying that our lives can ever exhibit or promote them so as to obtain meaning. One version of this approach maintains that, for our lives to matter, we must be in a position to add objective value to the world, which we are not since the objective value of the world is already infinite (Smith 2003). The key premises for this view are that every bit of space-time (or at least the stars in the physical universe) have some positive value, that these values can be added up, and that space is infinite. If the physical world at present contains an infinite degree of value, nothing we do can make a difference in terms of meaning, for infinity plus any amount of value remains infinity. One way to question this argument, beyond doubting the value of space-time or stars, is to suggest that, even if one cannot add to the value of the universe, meaning plausibly comes from being the source of certain values.

A second rationale for nihilism that accepts the existence of objective value is David Benatar’s (2006, 18–59) intriguing “asymmetry argument” for anti-natalism, the view that it is immoral to bring new people into existence because doing so would always be on balance bad for them. For Benatar, the bads of existing (e.g., pains) are real disadvantages relative to not existing, while the goods of existing (pleasures) are not real advantages relative to not existing, since there is in the latter state no one to be deprived of them. If indeed the state of not existing is no worse than that of experiencing the benefits of existence, then, since existing invariably brings harm in its wake, it follows that existing is always worse compared to not existing. Although this argument is illustrated with experiential goods and bads, it seems generalizable to non-experiential ones, including meaning in life and anti-matter. The literature on this argument has become large (for a recent collection, see Hauskeller and Hallich 2022).

Benatar (2006, 60–92, 2017, 35–63) has advanced an additional argument for nihilism, one that appeals to Thomas Nagel’s (1986, 208–32) widely discussed analysis of the extremely external standpoint that human persons can take on their lives. There exists, to use Henry Sidgwick’s influential phrase, the “point of view of the universe,” that is, the standpoint that considers a human being’s life in relation to all times and all places. When one takes up this most external standpoint and views one’s puny impact on the world, little of one’s life appears to matter. What one does in a certain society on Earth over 75 years or so just does not amount to much, when considering the billions of temporal years and billions of light-years that make up space-time. Although this reasoning grants limited kinds of meaning to human beings, from a personal, social, or human perspective, Benatar both denies that the greatest sort of meaning––a cosmic one––is available to them and contends that this makes their lives bad, hence the “nihilist” tag. Some have objected that our lives could in fact have a cosmic significance, say, if they played a role in God’s plan (Quinn 2000, 65–66; Swinburne 2016, 154), were the sole ones with a dignity in the universe (Kahane 2014), or engaged in valuable activities that could be appreciated by anyone anywhere anytime (Wolf 2016, 261–62). Others naturally maintain that cosmic significance is irrelevant to appraising a human life, with some denying that it would be a genuine source of meaning (Landau 2017, 93–99), and others accepting that it would be but maintaining that the absence of this good would not count as a bad or merit regret (discussed in Benatar 2017, 56–62; Williams 2020, 108–11).

Finally, a distinguishable source of nihilism concerns the ontological, as distinct from axiological, preconditions for meaning in life. Perhaps most radically, there are those who deny that we have selves. Do we indeed lack selves, and, if we do, is a meaningful life impossible for us (see essays in Caruso and Flanagan 2018; Le Bihan 2019)? Somewhat less radically, there are those who grant that we have selves, but deny that they are in charge in the relevant way. That is, some have argued that we lack self-governance or free will of the sort that is essential for meaning in life, at least if determinism is true (Pisciotta 2013; essays in Caruso and Flanagan 2018). Non-quantum events, including human decisions, appear to be necessited by a prior state of the world, such that none could have been otherwise, and many of our decisions are a product of unconscious neurological mechanisms (while quantum events are of course utterly beyond our control). If none of our conscious choices could have been avoided and all were ultimately necessited by something external to them, perhaps they are insufficient to merit pride or admiration or to constitute narrative authorship of a life. In reply, some maintain that a compatibilism between determinism and moral responsibility applies with comparable force to meaning in life (e.g., Arpaly 2006; Fischer 2009, 145–77), while others contend that incompatibilism is true of moral responsibility but not of meaning (Pereboom 2014).

• Agar, N., 2013, Humanity’s End: Why We Should Reject Radical Enhancement , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Alexis., A., 2011, The Meaning of Life: A Modern Secular Answer to the Age-Old Fundamental Question , CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
• Arpaly, N., 2006, Merit, Meaning, and Human Bondage , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Audi, R., 2005, “Intrinsic Value and Meaningful Life”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 331–55.
• Ayer, A. J., 1947, “The Claims of Philosophy”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 219–32.
• Baier, K., 1957, “The Meaning of Life”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 101–32.
• Barnes, H., 1967, An Existentialist Ethics , New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
• Belliotti, R., 2019, Is Human Life Absurd? A Philosophical Inquiry into Finitude, Value, and Meaning . Leiden: Brill.
• Belshaw, C., 2021, The Value and Meaning of Life , London: Routledge.
• Benatar, D., 2006, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2017, The Human Predicament , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Bennett-Hunter, G., 2014, Ineffability and Religious Experience , Oxford: Routledge.
• Blumenfeld, D., 2009, “Living Life over Again”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 79: 357–86.
• Bradford, G., 2015, Achievement , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Brännmark, J., 2003, “Leading Lives”, Philosophical Papers , 32: 321–43.
• Brogaard, B. and Smith, B., 2005, “On Luck, Responsibility, and the Meaning of Life”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 443–58.
• Calhoun, C., 2018, Doing Valuable Time: The Present, the Future, and Meaningful Living , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Campbell, S., and Nyholm, S., 2015, “Anti-Meaning and Why It Matters”, Journal of the American Philosophical Association , 1: 694–711.
• Caruso, G. and Flanagan, O. (eds.), 2018, Neuroexistentialism: Meaning, Morals, and Purpose in an Age of Neuroscience , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Cooper, D., 2003, Meaning . Durham: Acumen Publishing.
• Cottingham, J., 2005, The Spiritual Dimension: Religion, Philosophy and Human Value , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2016, “Meaningfulness, Eternity, and Theism”, in God and Meaning , J. Seachris and S. Goetz (eds.), New York: Bloomsbury Academic: 123–36.
• Craig, W., 1994, “The Absurdity of Life Without God”, repr. in Exploring the Meaning of Life: An Anthology and Guide , J. Seachris (ed.), Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013: 153–72.
• Danaher, J., 2017, “Will Life Be Worth Living in a World Without Work? Technological Unemployment and the Meaning of Life”, Science and Engineering Ethics , 23: 41–64.
• Darwall, S., 1983, Impartial Reason , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Davis, W., 1987, “The Meaning of Life”, Metaphilosophy , 18: 288–305.
• de Bres, H., 2018, “Narrative and Meaning in Life”, Journal of Moral Philosophy , 15: 545–71.
• Dorsey, D., 2015, “The Significance of a Life’s Shape”, Ethics , 125: 303–30.
• Egerstrom, K., 2015, “ Practical Identity and Meaninglessness ”, PhD Dissertation, Syracuse University.
• Ellin, J., 1995, Morality and the Meaning of Life , Ft. Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
• Evers, D., 2017, “Meaning in Life and the Metaphysics of Value”, De Ethica , 4: 27–44.
• Feinberg, J., 1980, “Absurd Self-Fulfillment,” repr. in Freedom and Fulfillment: Philosophical Essays , Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992: 297–330.
• Ferracioli, L., 2018, “Procreative-parenting, Love’s Reasons, and the Demands of Morality”, The Philosophical Quarterly , 68: 77–97.
• Fischer, J. M., 2009, Our Stories: Essays on Life, Death, and Free Will , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2019, Death, Immortality, and Meaning in Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Frankfurt, H., 1988, The Importance of What We Care About , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2004, The Reasons of Love , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Gewirth, A., 1998, Self-Fulfillment , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Goetz, S., 2012, The Purpose of Life: A Theistic Perspective , New York: Continuum.
• Goldman, A., 2018, Life’s Values: Pleasure, Happiness, Well-Being, and Meaning , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Greene, P., 2021, “It Doesn’t Matter Because One Day It Will End”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 24: 165–82.
• Hanfling, O., 1987, The Quest for Meaning , New York: Basil Blackwell Inc.
• Hare, R. M., 1957, “Nothing Matters”, repr. in Applications of Moral Philosophy , London: Macmillan, 1972: 32–47.
• Hauskeller, M. and Hallich, O. (eds.), 2022, “Would It Be Better if We Had Never Existed? David Benatar's Anti-Natalism”, special issue of The Journal of Value Inquiry , 56: 1–151.
• Hooker, B., 2008, “The Meaning of Life: Subjectivism, Objectivism, and Divine Support”, in The Moral Life: Essays in Honour of John Cottingham , N. Athanassoulis and S. Vice (eds.), New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 184–200.
• Hosseini, R., 2015, Wittgenstein and Meaning in Life: In Search of the Human Voice , New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Kahane, G., 2011, “Should We Want God to Exist?”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 82: 674–96.
• –––, 2014, “Our Cosmic Insignificance”, Noûs , 48: 745–72.
• Kamm, F. M., 2013, Bioethical Prescriptions: To Create, End, Choose, and Improve Lives , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Kass, L., 2002, Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics , San Francisco: Encounter Books.
• Kauppinen, A., 2012, “Meaningfulness and Time”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 82: 345–77.
• Kekes, J., 1986, “The Informed Will and the Meaning of Life”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 47: 75–90.
• –––, 2000, “The Meaning of Life”, in Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Volume 24; Life and Death: Metaphysics and Ethics , P. French and H. Wettstein (eds.), Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers: 17–34.
• Kraay, K. (ed.), 2018, Does God Matter? Essays on the Axiological Consequences of Theism , New York: Routledge.
• Landau, I., 1997, “Why Has the Question of the Meaning of Life Arisen in the Last Two and a Half Centuries?”, Philosophy Today , 41: 263–70.
• –––, 2017, Finding Meaning in an Imperfect World , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Le Bihan, B., 2019, “The No-Self View and the Meaning of Life”, Philosophy East and West , 69: 419–38.
• Levinson, J., 2004, “Intrinsic Value and the Notion of a Life”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 62: 319–29.
• Levy, N., 2005, “Downshifting and Meaning in Life”, Ratio , 18: 176–89.
• Lougheed, K., 2020, The Axiological Status of Theism and Other Worldviews , New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Mackie, J. L., 1977, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong , repr. London: Penguin Books, 1990.
• Markus, A., 2003, “Assessing Views of Life, A Subjective Affair?”, Religious Studies , 39: 125–43.
• Martela, F., 2017, “Meaningfulness as Contribution”, Southern Journal of Philosophy , 55: 232–56.
• Matheson, D., 2017, “The Worthwhileness of Meaningful Lives”, Philosophia , 48: 313–24.
• –––, 2018, “Creativity and Meaning in Life”, Ratio , 31: 73–87.
• Mawson, T., 2016, God and the Meanings of Life , London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
• –––, 2019, Monotheism and the Meaning of Life , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• May, T., 2009, Death , Stocksfield: Acumen.
• –––, 2015, A Significant Life: Human Meaning in a Silent Universe , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• McPherson, D., 2020, Virtue and Meaning: A Neo-Aristotelian Perspective , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Metz, T., 2002, “Recent Work on the Meaning of Life”, Ethics , 112: 781–814.
• –––, 2013, Meaning in Life: An Analytic Study , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2019, God, Soul and the Meaning of Life , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Mintoff, J., 2008, “Transcending Absurdity”, Ratio , 21: 64–84.
• Moreland, J. P., 1987, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity , Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
• Morris, T., 1992, Making Sense of It All: Pascal and the Meaning of Life , Grand Rapids, MI: Willliam B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Mulgan, T., 2015, Purpose in the Universe: The Moral and Metaphysical Case for Ananthropocentric Purposivism , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Murphy, J., 1982, Evolution, Morality, and the Meaning of Life , Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Nagel, T., 1970, “The Absurd”, Journal of Philosophy , 68: 716–27.
• –––, 1986, The View from Nowhere , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Nozick, R., 1974, Anarchy, State and Utopia , New York: Basic Books.
• –––, 1981, Philosophical Explanations , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1989, The Examined Life , New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Nussbaum, M., 1989, “Mortal Immortals: Lucretius on Death and the Voice of Nature”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 50: 303–51.
• Olson, N., 2016, “Medical Researchers’ Ancillary Care Obligations”, Bioethics , 30: 317–24.
• Pereboom, D., 2014, Free Will, Agency, and Meaning in Life , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Pisciotta, T., 2013, “ Determinism and Meaningfulness in Lives ”, PhD Dissertation, University of Melbourne.
• Purves, D. and Delon, N., 2018, “Meaning in the Lives of Humans and Other Animals”, Philosophical Studies , 175: 317–38.
• Quinn, P., 2000, “How Christianity Secures Life’s Meanings”, in The Meaning of Life in the World Religions , J. Runzo and N. Martin (eds.), Oxford: Oneworld Publications: 53–68.
• Raz, J., 2001, Value, Respect, and Attachment , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Repp, C., 2018, “Life Meaning and Sign Meaning”, Philosophical Papers , 47: 403–27.
• Ruse, M. and Wilson, E., 1986, “Moral Philosophy as Applied Science”, Philosophy , 61: 173–92.
• Scarre, G., 2007, Death . Stocksfield: Acumen.
• Schinkel, A., De Ruyter, D., and Aviram, A., 2015, “Education and Life’s Meaning”, Journal of Philosophy of Education , 50: 398–418.
• Seachris, J., 2011, “Death, Futility, and the Proleptic Power of Narrative Ending”, Religious Studies , 47: 141–63.
• –––, 2013, “General Introduction”, in Exploring the Meaning of Life: An Anthology and Guide , J. Seachris (ed.), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell: 1–20.
• –––, 2016, “From the Meaning Triad to Meaning Holism: Unifying Life’s Meaning”, Human Affairs , 29: 363–78.
• Singer, I., 1996, Meaning in Life, Volume 1: The Creation of Value , Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Singer, P., 1995, How Are We to Live? Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
• Smith, Q., 1997, Ethical and Religious Thought in Analytic Philosophy of Language , New Haven: Yale University Press.
• –––, 2003, “Moral Realism and Infinite Spacetime Imply Moral Nihilism”, in Time and Ethics: Essays at the Intersection , H. Dyke (ed.), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 43–54.
• Smuts, A., 2011, “Immortality and Significance”, Philosophy and Literature , 35: 134–49.
• –––, 2018, Welfare, Meaning, and Worth , New York: Routledge
• Solomon, R., 1993, The Passions: Emotions and the Meaning of Life , Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
• Street, S., 2015, “Does Anything Really Matter or Did We Just Evolve to Think So?”, in The Norton Introduction to Philosophy , G. Rosen et al. (eds.), New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.: 685–95.
• Svensson, F., 2017, “A Subjectivist Account of Meaning in Life”, De Ethica , 4: 45–66.
• Swenson, D., 1949, “The Dignity of Human Life”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 21–30.
• Swinburne, R., 2016, “How God Makes Life a Lot More Meaningful”, in God and Meaning , J. Seachris and S. Goetz (eds.), New York: Bloomsbury Academic: 151–63.
• Tabensky, P., 2003, “Parallels Between Living and Painting”, The Journal of Value Inquiry , 37: 59–68.
• Tartaglia, J., 2015, Philosophy in a Meaningless Life , London: Bloomsbury.
• Taylor, C., 1989, Sources of the Self , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1992, The Ethics of Authenticity , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Taylor, R., 1970, “The Meaning of Life”, in Good and Evil , repr. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Boooks, 2000: 319–34.
• –––, 1987, “Time and Life’s Meaning”, The Review of Metaphysics , 40: 675–86.
• Thomas, J., 2018, “Can Only Human Lives Be Meaningful?”, Philosophical Papers , 47: 265–97.
• –––, 2019, “Meaningfulness as Sensefulness”, Philosophia , 47: 1555–77.
• Thomson, G., 2003, On the Meaning of Life , South Melbourne: Wadsworth.
• Tooley, M., 2018, “Axiology: Theism Versus Widely Accepted Monotheisms”, in Does God Matter? Essays on the Axiological Consequences of Theism , K. Kraay, (ed.), New York: Routledge: 46–69.
• Trisel, B. A., 2002, “Futility and the Meaning of Life Debate”, Sorites , 14: 70–84.
• –––, 2004, “Human Extinction and the Value of Our Efforts”, The Philosophical Forum , 35: 371–91.
• –––, 2016, “Human Extinction, Narrative Ending, and Meaning of Life”, Journal of Philosophy of Life , 6: 1–22.
• Velleman, J. D., 2015, Beyond Price: Essays on Birth and Death , Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.
• Visak, T., 2017, “Understanding ‘Meaning of Life’ in Terms of Reasons for Action”, The Journal of Value Inquiry , 51: 507–30.
• Waghorn, N., 2014, Nothingness and the Meaning of Life: Philosophical Approaches to Ultimate Meaning through Nothing and Reflexivity , London: Bloomsbury.
• Wielenberg, E., 2005, Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Wiggins, D., 1988, “Truth, Invention, and the Meaning of Life”, rev. edn. in Essays on Moral Realism , G. Sayre-McCord (ed.), Ithaca: Cornell University Press: 127–65.
• Williams, B., 1973, “The Makropulos Case: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality”, in Problems of the Self , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 82–100.
• –––, 1976, “Persons, Character and Morality”, in The Identities of Persons , A. O. Rorty (ed.), Berkeley: University of California Press: 197–216.
• Williams, C., 2020, Religion and the Meaning of Life: An Existential Approach , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Wolf, S., 2010, Meaning in Life and Why It Matters , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2015, The Variety of Values: Essays on Morality, Meaning, and Love , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2016, “Meaningfulness: A Third Dimension of the Good Life”, Foundations of Science , 21: 253–69.
• Wong, W., 2008, “Meaningfulness and Identities”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 11: 123–48.
• Buber, M., 1923, I and Thou , W. Kaufmann (tr.), New York: Simon & Schuster Inc., 1970.
• Camus, A., 1942, The Myth of Sisyphus , J. O’Brian (tr.), London: H. Hamilton, 1955.
• James, W., 1899, “What Makes a Life Significant?”, in On Some of Life’s Ideals , New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1900.
• Jaspers, K., 1931, Man in the Modern Age , E. Paul and C. Paul (tr.), New York: Routledge, 2010.
• Kant, I., 1791, Critique of the Power of Judgment , P. Guyer and E. Mathews (tr.), New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
• Kierkegaard, S., 1849, The Sickness unto Death , H. V. Hong and E. H. Hong (tr.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980.
• Marx, K., 1844, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts , in Karl Marx Selected Writings, 2 nd Ed. , D. McLellan (ed., tr.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
• Nietzsche, F., 1885, Thus Spoke Zarathustra , in The Portable Nietzsche , W. Kaufmann (ed., tr.), New York: Viking Press, 1954.
• Sartre, J.-P., 1946, Existentialism Is a Humanism , P. Mairet (tr.), London: Methuen & Co, 1948.
• Schlick, M., 1927, “ On the Meaning of Life ”, P. Heath (tr.).
• Schopenhauer, A., 1851, Parerga and Paralipomena: Short Philosophical Essays, Volume 2 , E. F. J. Payne (tr.), New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.
• Tolstoy, L., 1884, A Confession , L. Maude and A. Maude (tr.).
• Wittgenstein, L., 1929, Lecture on Ethics , E. Zamuner et al. (eds.), Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2014.
• Benatar, D. (ed.), 2016, Life, Death & Meaning, 3 rd Ed. , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
• Cottingham, J. (ed.), 2007, Western Philosophy: An Anthology, 2 nd Ed. , Oxford: Blackwell: pt. 12.
• Garcia, R. and King, N. (eds.), 2009, Is Goodness Without God Good Enough? Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Klemke, E. D. and Cahn, S. M. (eds.), 2018, The Meaning of Life: A Reader, 4 th Ed. , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Kolodny, N. (ed.), 2013, Death and the Afterlife , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Leach, S. and Tartaglia, J. (eds.), 2018, The Meaning of Life and the Great Philosophers , London: Routledge.
• Morioka, M. (ed.), 2015, Reconsidering Meaning in Life , Saitama: Waseda University.
• ––– (ed.), 2017, Nihilism and the Meaning of Life , Saitama: Waseda University.
• Seachris, J. (ed.), 2013, Exploring the Meaning of Life: An Anthology and Guide , Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Seachris, J. and Goetz, S. (eds.), 2016, God and Meaning: New Essays , New York: Bloombsury Academic.
• Baggini, J., 2004, What’s It All About?: Philosophy and the Meaning of Life , London: Granta Books.
• Belliotti, R., 2001, What Is the Meaning of Life? , Amsterdam: Rodopi.
• Belshaw, C., 2005, 10 Good Questions About Life and Death , Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Cottingham, J., 2003, On the Meaning of Life , London: Routledge.
• Eagleton, T., 2007, The Meaning of Life: A Very Short Introduction , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Fischer, J. M., 2019, Death, Immortality, and Meaning in Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Ford, D., 2007, The Search for Meaning: A Short History , Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Hauskeller, M., 2020, The Meaning of Life and Death: Ten Classic Thinkers on the Ultimate Question , London: Bloomsbury Academic.
• Martin, M., 2002, Atheism, Morality, and Meaning , Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
• Messerly, J., 2012, The Meaning of Life: Religious, Philosophical, Transhumanist, and Scientific Approaches , Seattle: Darwin and Hume Publishers.
• Ruse, M., 2019, A Meaning to Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Young, J., 2003, The Death of God and the Meaning of Life , New York: Routledge.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Delon, N., 2021, “ The Meaning of Life ”, a bibliography on PhilPapers.
• Metz, T., 2021, “ Life, Meaning of ”, in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy , E. Mason (ed.).
• O’Brien, W., 2021, “ The Meaning of Life: Early Continental and Analytic Perspectives ”, in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy , J. Fieser and B. Dowden (eds.).
• Seachris, J., 2021, “ Meaning of Life: The Analytic Perspective ”, in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy , J. Fieser and B. Dowden (eds.).

afterlife | death | ethics: ancient | existentialism | friendship | love | perfectionism, in moral and political philosophy | value: intrinsic vs. extrinsic | well-being

Copyright © 2021 by Thaddeus Metz < th . metz @ up . ac . za >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

5.1 Social Structure: The Building Blocks of Social Life

Learning objectives.

• Describe the difference between a status and a role.
• Understand the difference between an ascribed status, an achieved status, and a master status.
• List the major social institutions.

Social life is composed of many levels of building blocks, from the very micro to the very macro. These building blocks combine to form the social structure . As Chapter 1 “Sociology and the Sociological Perspective” explained, social structure refers to the social patterns through which a society is organized and can be horizontal or vertical. To recall, horizontal social structure refers to the social relationships and the social and physical characteristics of communities to which individuals belong, while vertical social structure , more commonly called social inequality , refers to ways in which a society or group ranks people in a hierarchy. This chapter’s discussion of social structure focuses primarily on horizontal social structure, while Chapter 8 “Social Stratification” through Chapter 12 “Aging and the Elderly” , as well as much material in other chapters, examine dimensions of social inequality. The (horizontal) social structure comprises several components, to which we now turn, starting with the most micro and ending with the most macro. Our discussion of social interaction in the second half of this chapter incorporates several of these components.

Status has many meanings in the dictionary and also within sociology, but for now we will define it as the position that someone occupies in society. This position is often a job title, but many other types of positions exist: student, parent, sibling, relative, friend, and so forth. It should be clear that status as used in this way conveys nothing about the prestige of the position, to use a common synonym for status. A physician’s job is a status with much prestige, but a shoeshiner’s job is a status with no prestige.

Any one individual often occupies several different statuses at the same time, and someone can simultaneously be a banker, Girl Scout troop leader, mother, school board member, volunteer at a homeless shelter, and spouse. This someone would be very busy! We call all the positions an individual occupies that person’s status set (see Figure 5.1 “Example of a Status Set” ).

Figure 5.1 Example of a Status Set

Sociologists usually speak of three types of statuses. The first type is ascribed status , which is the status that someone is born with and has no control over. There are relatively few ascribed statuses; the most common ones are our biological sex, race, parents’ social class and religious affiliation, and biological relationships (child, grandchild, sibling, and so forth).

Status refers to the position an individual occupies. Used in this way, a person’s status is not related to the prestige of that status. The jobs of physician and shoeshiner are both statuses, even though one of these jobs is much more prestigious than the other job.

Public Domain Images – CC0 public domain.

The second kind of status is called achieved status , which, as the name implies, is a status you achieve, at some point after birth, sometimes through your own efforts and sometimes because good or bad luck befalls you. The status of student is an achieved status, as is the status of restaurant server or romantic partner, to cite just two of the many achieved statuses that exist.

Two things about achieved statuses should be kept in mind. First, our ascribed statuses, and in particular our sex, race and ethnicity, and social class, often affect our ability to acquire and maintain many achieved statuses (such as college graduate). Second, achieved statuses can be viewed positively or negatively. Our society usually views achieved statuses such as physician, professor, or college student positively, but it certainly views achieved statuses such as burglar, prostitute, and pimp negatively.

The third type of status is called a master status . This is a status that is so important that it overrides other statuses you may hold. In terms of people’s reactions, master statuses can be either positive or negative for an individual depending on the particular master status they hold. Barack Obama now holds the positive master status of president of the United States: his status as president overrides all the other statuses he holds (husband, father, and so forth), and millions of Americans respect him, whether or not they voted for him or now favor his policies, because of this status. Many other positive master statuses exist in the political and entertainment worlds and in other spheres of life.

Some master statuses have negative consequences. To recall the medical student and nursing home news story that began this chapter, a physical disability often becomes such a master status. If you are bound to a wheelchair, for example, this fact becomes more important than the other statuses you have and may prompt people to perceive and interact with you negatively. In particular, they perceive you more in terms of your master status (someone bound to a wheelchair) than as the “person beneath” the master status, to cite Matt’s words. For similar reasons, gender, race, and sexual orientation may also be considered master statuses, as these statuses often subject women, people of color, and gays and lesbians, respectively, to discrimination and other problems, no matter what other statuses they may have.

Whatever status we occupy, certain objects signify any particular status. These objects are called status symbols . In popular terms, status symbol usually means something like a Rolls-Royce or BMW that shows off someone’s wealth or success, and many status symbols of this type exist. But sociologists use the term more generally than that. For example, the wheelchair that Matt the medical student rode for 12 days was a status symbol that signified his master status of someone with a (feigned) disability. If someone is pushing a stroller, the stroller is a status symbol that signifies that the person pushing it is a parent or caretaker of a young child.

Whatever its type, every status is accompanied by a role , which is the behavior expected of someone—and in fact everyone —with a certain status. You and most other people reading this book are students. Despite all the other differences among you, you have at least this one status in common. As such, there is a role expected of you as a student (at least by your professors); this role includes coming to class regularly, doing all the reading assigned from this textbook, and studying the best you can for exams. Roles for given statuses existed long before we were born, and they will continue long after we are no longer alive. A major dimension of socialization is learning the roles our society has and then behaving in the way a particular role demands.

Roles help us interact because we are familiar with the behavior associated with roles. Because shoppers and cashiers know what to expect of each other, their social interaction is possible.

David Tan – Cashier – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Because roles are the behavior expected of people in various statuses, they help us interact because we are familiar with the roles in the first place, a point to which the second half of this chapter returns. Suppose you are shopping in a department store. Your status is a shopper, and the role expected of you as a shopper—and of all shoppers—involves looking quietly at various items in the store, taking the ones you want to purchase to a checkout line, and paying for them. The person who takes your money is occupying another status in the store that we often call a cashier. The role expected of that cashier—and of all cashiers not only in that store but in every other store—is to accept your payment in a businesslike way and put your items in a bag. Because shoppers and cashiers all have these mutual expectations, their social interaction is possible.

Social Networks

Modern life seems increasingly characterized by social networks. A social network is the totality of relationships that link us to other people and groups and through them to still other people and groups. As Facebook and other social media show so clearly, social networks can be incredibly extensive. Social networks can be so large, of course, that an individual in a network may know little or nothing of another individual in the network (e.g., a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend). But these “friends of friends” can sometimes be an important source of practical advice and other kinds of help. They can “open doors” in the job market, they can introduce you to a potential romantic partner, they can pass through some tickets to the next big basketball game. As a key building block of social structure, social networks receive a fuller discussion in Chapter 6 “Groups and Organizations” .

Groups and Organizations

Groups and organizations are the next component of social structure. Because Chapter 6 “Groups and Organizations” discusses groups and organizations extensively, here we will simply define them and say one or two things about them.

A social group (hereafter just group ) consists of two or more people who regularly interact on the basis of mutual expectations and who share a common identity. To paraphrase John Donne, the 17th-century English poet, no one is an island; almost all people are members of many groups, including families, groups of friends, and groups of coworkers in a workplace. Sociology is sometimes called the study of group life, and it is difficult to imagine a modern society without many types of groups and a small, traditional society without at least some groups.

In terms of size, emotional bonding, and other characteristics, many types of groups exist, as Chapter 6 “Groups and Organizations” explains. But one of the most important types is the formal organization (also just organization ), which is a large group that follows explicit rules and procedures to achieve specific goals and tasks. For better and for worse, organizations are an essential feature of modern societies. Our banks, our hospitals, our schools, and so many other examples are all organizations, even if they differ from one another in many respects. In terms of their goals and other characteristics, several types of organizations exist, as Chapter 6 “Groups and Organizations” will again discuss.

Social Institutions

Yet another component of social structure is the social institution , or patterns of beliefs and behavior that help a society meet its basic needs. Modern society is filled with many social institutions that all help society meet its needs and achieve other goals and thus have a profound impact not only on the society as a whole but also on virtually every individual in a society. Examples of social institutions include the family, the economy, the polity (government), education, religion, and medicine. Chapter 13 “Work and the Economy” through Chapter 18 “Health and Medicine” examine each of these social institutions separately.

As those chapters will show, these social institutions all help the United States meet its basic needs, but they also have failings that prevent the United States from meeting all its needs. A particular problem is social inequality, to recall the vertical dimension of social structure, as our social institutions often fail many people because of their social class, race, ethnicity, gender, or all four. These chapters will also indicate that American society could better fulfill its needs if it followed certain practices and policies of other democracies that often help their societies “work” better than our own.

The largest component of social structure is, of course, society itself. Chapter 1 “Sociology and the Sociological Perspective” defined society as a group of people who live within a defined territory and who share a culture. Societies certainly differ in many ways; some are larger in population and some are smaller, some are modern and some are less modern. Since the origins of sociology during the 19th century, sociologists have tried to understand how and why modern, industrial society developed. Part of this understanding involves determining the differences between industrial societies and traditional ones.

One of the key differences between traditional and industrial societies is the emphasis placed on the community versus the emphasis placed on the individual. In traditional societies, community feeling and group commitment are usually the cornerstones of social life. In contrast, industrial society is more individualistic and impersonal. Whereas the people in traditional societies have close daily ties, those in industrial societies have many relationships in which one person barely knows the other person. Commitment to the group and community become less important in industrial societies, and individualism becomes more important.

Sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies (1887/1963) long ago characterized these key characteristics of traditional and industrial societies with the German words Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft . Gemeinschaft means human community, and Tönnies said that a sense of community characterizes traditional societies, where family, kin, and community ties are quite strong. As societies grew and industrialized and as people moved to cities, Tönnies said, social ties weakened and became more impersonal. Tönnies called this situation Gesellschaft and found it dismaying. Chapter 5 “Social Structure and Social Interaction” , Section 5.2 “The Development of Modern Society” discusses the development of societies in more detail.

Key Takeaways

• The major components of social structure are statuses, roles, social networks, groups and organizations, social institutions, and society.
• Specific types of statuses include the ascribed status, achieved status, and master status. Depending on the type of master status, an individual may be viewed positively or negatively because of a master status.

For Your Review

• Take a moment and list every status that you now occupy. Next to each status, indicate whether it is an ascribed status, achieved status, or master status.
• Take a moment and list every group to which you belong. Write a brief essay in which you comment on which of the groups are more meaningful to you and which are less meaningful to you.

Tönnies, F. (1963). Community and society . New York, NY: Harper and Row. (Original work published 1887).

Sociology Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

What Are Social Skills? (Definition, Examples & Importance)

You’ve probably read loads of articles about how important social skills are. It can be difficult to improve social skills when you don’t really understand exactly what they are and how to work on them.

Something that makes social skills difficult for people to learn is that there can be an expectation that we just “know.” Lots of our readers feel like there was a class they missed in high school where everyone else learned social skills and they were the only ones who didn’t.

Obviously, there wasn’t a class like that, and you’re not the only one who struggles with understanding social skills. In this article, we’re going to look at what social skills are, why they’re important (and difficult), and how to improve them.

What are social skills?

Why are social skills important, examples of good vs. bad social skills, how to improve your social skills, causes of low social skills, common questions.

Social skills are ways of interacting with others that make it easier to succeed socially. They allow you to communicate effectively and understand what others are trying to communicate to you, both verbally and non-verbally.

This definition is a bit vague, but that’s because social skills cover lots of different aspects. You might be surprised to realize that even psychology researchers struggle to agree on a definition of social skills. [ 1 ]

One approach breaks social skills down into 5 components; cooperation, assertion, self-control, responsibility, and empathy. [ 2 ]

• Cooperation is how well you work with other people to achieve a task, including negotiation and persuasion.
• Assertion is how well you are able to initiate social interactions, for example introducing yourself to others.
• Self-control skills allow you to deal with your emotions constructively, for example not losing your temper.
• Responsibility is about recognizing the impact of your actions on others and making prosocial decisions.
• Empathy is being able to understand what others might be feeling and being able to put yourself in their shoes. It’s a measure of social perceptiveness.

One difficulty with social skills is that there aren’t many hard-and-fast rules. Unlike in math or physics, doing the same thing repeatedly won’t give you the same result. Social skills are often based on accurately understanding what someone else is thinking and feeling.

It might be helpful to think of social skills in three basic parts; understanding feelings (including your own), understanding the social environment, and being able to carry out the right social behavior.

For example, if you see someone crying, your empathy lets you realize that they might be upset and want to be comforted. Your understanding of the social environment lets you judge how well you know them and whether they might welcome comfort from you. Being able to carry out the right social action might be offering them a hug or handing them a tissue.

Important facts about social skills

When you’re thinking about social skills, here are some important facts to bear in mind.

1. Social skills can be learned

We call them social skills because they are just like any other skill. You can learn new social skills, and you need to keep practicing them. [ 3 ]

2. Social rules are flexible

When we talk about social rules, they’re mostly guidelines. The more socially skilled you are, the more you can break the rules.

This means that you can’t always use other people’s behavior as a guide. If they’re more socially skilled than you, they might be responding to social cues that you haven’t seen.

3. You can’t opt out of social skills

There are lots of skills that you can opt-out of learning. If you’re not musical, you might decide not to learn an instrument. Interpersonal skills are different. Even sending an email at work uses social skills. We all use social skills every day.

Social skills can impact every aspect of your life; finding a romantic partner, how much money you earn, and even how healthy you are. Here are some of the most important benefits of improving your social skills.

1. More and better relationships

Social skills are key to building good relationships. Our social skills let us understand how our friends, family, and co-workers are feeling and what they are looking for from us.

Improving your social skills will help you build close, trusting relationships with others.

2. Better communication

Social skills are all about communication. Socially skilled people can read someone else’s body language and understand more of what they are communicating. They are also able to create rapport, which makes it easier for others to be honest with them. [ 4 ]

3. Advancing career prospects

People with better social skills also have better career prospects. Studies show that socially skilled people have more successful careers. [ 5 ] They feel more satisfied with their lives and their careers and find it easier to stay motivated.

Social skills are especially important for entrepreneurs. Being socially skilled lets you convince others of your trustworthiness and judge how trustworthy other people are. [ 6 ]

4. Being happier

People with good social skills are generally happier than those with poor social skills. [ 7 ] This is mostly due to the number and depth of friendships that socially skilled people are able to build. [ 8 ] These friendships help fulfill your emotional needs and can offer support when things are difficult.‌

5. Better academic performance

Children with better social skills typically get better grades in school. [ 9 ] Teachers may expect socially skilled children to do better, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. [ 10 ] Socially skilled children also often have fewer disruptive behaviors, which gives them more time and energy for learning. [ 11 ]

6. Decreased loneliness

Having better social skills helps to protect you against loneliness. Great social skills don’t just help you form closer friendships. They also give you the confidence to reach out to people around you when you feel lonely. [ 12 ]

We also have a full guide on how to feel less lonely .

7. Better health

Having better social skills doesn’t just improve your emotional wellbeing. It can help your mental and physical health as well.

For example, studies show that patients with bulimia have lower social skills and weaker support networks. [ 13 ] It is suggested (though not yet confirmed) that strong social skills help people to build support networks, which can protect their mental health and social health .

Having strong social skills can also help you get better treatment from doctors. [ 14 ][ 15 ] This can include getting an urgent appointment when you need it, being able to communicate your symptoms, and having doctors trust your assessment of your needs.

People with poor social skills can find themselves in social situations that they don’t fully understand and don’t feel equipped to handle. If you’re not sure how good your social skills are, here are some signs of low social skills:

When you realize how often you use social skills, it can make improving them more intimidating. Some people worry that improving their social skills means that they can’t be themselves anymore.

Building social skills is actually about making it easier to be yourself. Here are our top tips for improving your social skills

1. Get feedback

There are loads of different social skills. You might be great at some, even if you struggle with others. Your first task is to find out where you struggle.

This isn’t usually something you can work out alone. You need to be interacting with someone else to use social skills. In order to learn, you need to have a good idea of how you came across to the other person.

Try to find a friend (or several) who can help you to understand how good your different social skills are at the moment. Often, asking for feedback comes across as asking for reassurance, so explain why you’re asking for their help.

Try saying, “I’m trying to improve my social skills, but I don’t always know when I’m doing well or badly. Could you give me some honest feedback about how I come across, please?”

2. Identify areas for practice

Social skills are such a huge topic that you can’t work on all of them at the same time. Instead, try to find a couple that you want to work on first.

Where you focus your efforts will usually depend on where your weaknesses are and what will make the most impact on your life.

For example, you might find it difficult to read other people’s facial expressions. If you work in an office, that might cause problems for you, so you could prioritize improving your ability to read other people’s emotions. If you mostly work from home, however, struggling to read facial expressions might not be a problem. In that case, you might prioritize something else.

If you’re not sure where to start, consider focusing on active listening and learning to read other people’s emotions from their facial expressions, tone of voice, and body language, such as eye contact and gestures.

3. Make a plan

Improving your social skills can be difficult. Make it easier with a plan. Try setting yourself achievable goals to help you work on the priorities you’ve identified.

Your goals should be specific and focused on what you want to achieve, but here are some ideas:

• Smile at 3 new people each day
• Ask the cashier how their day is going when you shop
• Read one new article or post on social skills each week – bonus points for discussing it with a friend
• Spend at least 20 minutes at a social event you’re nervous about

Make sure to include reviewing progress and making new goals in your plan. Recognizing your progress is key to keeping you motivated, even when it feels awkward. [ 16 ]

4. Consider therapy

Lots of people struggle with social skills because of deep insecurities or having learned unhelpful coping strategies throughout their lives. Finding a great therapist can help you deal with underlying issues and practice your social skills in a safe and supportive environment.

We really like BetterHelp for a fast and affordable way to get in touch with the right therapist for you.

These are just a few of the ways that you can become more socially adept. For more ideas, check out our complete guide to improving your social skills .

Lots of people have difficulty learning social skills. Here are some factors that can lead to low social skills.

Autism spectrum disorders

Autism spectrum disorders and Asperger’s can lead to the development of poor social skills. People with autism spectrum disorders communicate in a slightly different way from those without. [ 17 ] This can make it difficult for them to form connections and learn social skills.

People with autism spectrum disorders can still learn social skills successfully, but they may respond better to different teaching methods. [ 18 ]

‌Social anxiety

Most of us learn social skills by practicing. Having social anxiety can lead you to avoid groups, making it harder for you to learn. You may also find making mistakes to be traumatic, meaning that you’re too upset to learn from your errors.

ADHD and hyperkinetic disorder

People with ADHD and related disorders can suffer from “social naivety” and have social skills that are less advanced than their peers. [ 19 ] Their impulsivity, in particular, can make it difficult for them to form close bonds with others.

Just like social anxiety, depression can make you avoid social events. It can also lead you to evaluate your social skills very harshly, which makes it difficult for you to see what you have learned or accept that you do some things well. Skills such as confidence and assertiveness can be particularly difficult if you are suffering from depression.

Antisocial behaviors

People, especially young people, who display antisocial behaviors typically have poor social skills, especially empathy. [ 20 ] They don’t think about the impact that their actions have on the people around them or their social network.

Social skills training can help improve social skills and decrease antisocial behavior. This helps create a virtuous cycle, where increased social skills allow for more social interaction, which further improves social skills. [ 21 ]

Alcohol misuse

People with a history of alcohol misuse or who have grown up with a parent with addiction issues often struggle to develop social skills. They may rely on drinking to reduce their anxiety around social situations, never having the opportunity to learn new, healthier coping strategies and skills. [ 22 ]

How can I tell if my child has problems with social skills?

Teachers will often alert you to problems with your child’s social skills. They’re well-placed to know whether your child is performing well for their age. If you’re unsure, consider whether your child can understand the emotions of others and communicate their own feelings appropriately.

Why are social skills important in early childhood?

Good social skills in preschoolers help children develop the self-confidence and positive experiences that they need to allow them to succeed throughout their lives. Teaching your child how to interact well with others allows them to learn, play and grow in a social world.

Are there any social skills disorders?

Many disorders have an impact on social skills, including autism spectrum disorders, depression, ADHD, anxiety, schizophrenia, social communication disorder, and more. Even when social skills aren’t part of diagnosis (for example, schizophrenia), social skills training can help alleviate symptoms. [ 23 ]

What are the most important social skills at work?

Which social skills are most important at work partly depends on the work you do. Good communication skills and the ability to cooperate well with others are helpful in most roles. Self-confidence can also be important for leaders or those who have to work independently.

This article on improving interpersonal skills at work might be helpful.

What type of therapy is recommended for social skill difficulties?

Different types of therapy can help develop your social skills. Which is right for you depends on your personality and specific challenges. Research shows that finding a therapist you trust is more important than the type of therapy they offer. [ 24 ] Social skills training can be offered with therapy.

What is social skills training?

• Ogden, T. (2003). The Validity of Teacher Ratings of Adolescents’ Social Skills . Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47 (1), 63–76.
• Gresham, F. M., Elliott, S. N., Vance, M. J., & Cook, C. R. (2011). Comparability of the Social Skills Rating System to the Social Skills Improvement System: Content and psychometric comparisons across elementary and secondary age levels . School Psychology Quarterly, 26 (1), 27–44.
• Eisler, R. M., & Frederiksen, L. W. (2012). Perfecting Social Skills: a Guide to Interpersonal Behavior Development. Springer US .
• Miller, T., Birch, M., Mauthner, M., & Jessop, J. (2012). Ethics in qualitative research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd .
• Amdurer, E., Boyatzis, R. E., Saatcioglu, A., Smith, M. L., & Taylor, S. N. (2014). Long term impact of emotional, social and cognitive intelligence competencies and GMAT on career and life satisfaction and career success . Frontiers in Psychology, 5.
• Baron, R. A., & Markman, G. D. (2000). Beyond social capital: How social skills can enhance entrepreneurs’ success . Academy of Management Perspectives, 14 (1), 106–116.
• Argyle, M., & Lu, L. (1990). Happiness and social skills . Personality and Individual Differences, 11 (12), 1255–1261.
• Demir, M., Jaafar, J., Bilyk, N., & Mohd Ariff, M. R. (2012). Social Skills, Friendship and Happiness: A Cross-Cultural Investigation . The Journal of Social Psychology, 152 (3), 379–385.
• Malecki, C. K., & Elliot, S. N. (2002). Children’s social behaviors as predictors of academic achievement: A longitudinal analysis . School Psychology Quarterly, 17 (1), 1–23.
• Tauber, R. T. (1997). Self-fulfilling prophecy: a practical guide to its use in education . Praeger .
• Del Prette, Z. A. P., Prette, A. D., De Oliveira, L. A., Gresham, F. M., & Vance, M. J. (2012). Role of social performance in predicting learning problems: Prediction of risk using logistic regression analysis . School Psychology International, 33 (6), 615–630.
• Sakız, H., Mert, A., & Sarıçam, H. (2020). Self-esteem and perceived social competence protect adolescent students against ostracism and loneliness . Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 31 (1), 1–16.
• Grisset, N. I., & Norvell, N. K. (1992). Perceived social support, social skills, and quality of relationships in bulimic women . Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60 (2), 293–299.
• Carvel, J. (2003). Rich patients get better NHS care . The Guardian.
• Willems, S., De Maesschalck, S., Deveugele, M., Derese, A., & De Maeseneer, J. (2005). Socio-economic status of the patient and doctor–patient communication: does it make a difference? Patient Education and Counseling, 56 (2), 139–146.
• Avrahami, D., Williams, K., Lee, M. L., Tokunaga, N., Tjahjadi, Y., & Marlow, J. (2020). Celebrating Everyday Success: Improving Engagement and Motivation using a System for Recording Daily Highlights . Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
• DeRosier, M. E., Swick, D. C., Davis, N. O., McMillen, J. S., & Matthews, R. (2010). The Efficacy of a Social Skills Group Intervention for Improving Social Behaviors in Children with High Functioning Autism Spectrum Disorders . Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41 (8), 1033–1043.
• Parsons, S., & Mitchell, P. (2002). The potential of virtual reality in social skills training for people with autistic spectrum disorders . Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 46( 5), 430–443.
• Carpenter Rich, E., Loo, S. K., Yang, M., Dang, J., & Smalley, S. L. (2009). Social Functioning Difficulties in ADHD: Association with PDD Risk . Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 14 (3), 329–344.
• Hecht, D. (2014). Cerebral Lateralization of Pro- and Anti-Social Tendencies . Experimental Neurobiology, 23 (1), 1.
• Pilgrim, D. (2008). “Recovery” and current mental health policy . Chronic Illness, 4 (4), 295–304.
• Zeitlin, H. (1994). Children with alcohol misusing parents . British Medical Bulletin, 50 (1), 139–151.
• Kopelowicz, A. (2006). Recent Advances in Social Skills Training for Schizophrenia . Schizophrenia Bulletin, 32(Supplement 1), S12–S23.
• Paul, S., & Charura, D. (2015). An introduction to the therapeutic relationship in counselling and psychotherapy. Sage Publications Ltd .
• Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, J., & Hammond, M. (2001). Social Skills and Problem-solving Training for Children with Early-onset Conduct Problems: Who Benefits? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42 (7), 943–952.

Viktor is a Counselor specialized in interpersonal communication and relationships. He manages SocialSelf’s scientific review board. Follow on Twitter or read more .

How To Be More Outgoing (If You’re Not the Social Type)

17 Tips to Improve Your People Skills (With Examples)

How To Be More Social (If You’re Not a Party-person)

How to Never Run Out of Things to Say (If You Blank Out)

How to be Funny in a Conversation (For Non-Funny People)

How to Make Interesting Conversation (For Any Situation)

How To Be More Approachable (And Look More Friendly)

How to Stop Being Quiet (When You’re Stuck in Your Head)

How to Not be Boring

Do People Ignore You? Reasons Why & What to Do

okay will reseat all due to this information about it

the danger of appearance anxiety

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Notify me when someone responds to my comment.

What statement best describes you?

How motivated are you to find like-minded friends, do you agree with this statement “i want to be more likable”, do you agree with this statement “i want to be more interesting to talk to”, do you agree with this statement “i want to be less awkward”, what best describes you, responses successfully analyzed, where should we send your personalized tips.

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

social life

Learn about this topic in these articles:, aspect of social structure.

Social life is structured along the dimensions of time and space. Specific social activities take place at specific times, and time is divided into periods that are connected with the rhythms of social life—the routines of the day, the month, and the year. Specific social…

How Social Media Impact Our Life (Explained)

By: Author Valerie Forgeard

Posted on Published: December 8, 2021  - Last updated: January 2, 2024

Categories Society

Social media is a big part of our lives. It has become how we sometimes communicate with others and even ourselves. We rely on social media to keep up with friends, family, and what’s happening worldwide. Social Media impacts our life in many ways, but it can also be detrimental if used incorrectly or too much.

This blog post will help you understand how social media impacts our lives for better or worse by providing tips that you can use to make your experience more positive for yourself and those around you!

Social Media Has an Impact on Real Life

I always think of social media as mapping our social lives in the mass media, where everyone can interact with us and judge our every move. Social media has become an essential part of our lives whether we like it or not. They can be used for good or for bad.

Social media has changed the face of communication and personal interaction. The impact they have on the world can be observed in many ways.

Social media has changed how we live and will continue to do so in the future. Social media is a great place to get new information, make friends, and voice your opinion.

Before, you could only talk to people face-to-face or over the phone. Making friends that way was difficult because you’d have to be around them for them to consider you a friend.

Social media has changed that because it allows you to connect with people worldwide in your everyday life. This has allowed us to expand our social network and connect with more people than ever before.

Social media positively affects our lives and can help us grow as individuals, but it can also be harmful if abused.

How Social Media Affects Mental Health

Social media can affect your mental health in several ways. First, they can lead to feelings of inadequacy and low self-worth.

Most people on social media post only their most flattering, heavily filtered photos and present themselves in the best light.

When you log on to social media, you’re confronted with a seemingly endless stream of beautiful pictures and perfect strangers who’re getting married, traveling the world, or have six-figure jobs – all things that make you feel like you’re falling short.

You may wish you were more attractive, had more impressive friends/family/colleagues, lived in a nicer house, or owned more material things.

This can lead to feelings of envy and resentment toward others.

These feelings are amplified by so many people presenting the best version of themselves online: We tend to post our happiest moments and most achievements online – our bad days, failures, and frustrations are much less reported.

Some studies show that we’re more likely to share our feelings on Facebook when we feel strong emotions like happiness or sadness than when we feel neutral.

So when you see a Facebook user talking about his/her great vacation (on a sandy beach, for example), it’s easy to think they have a perfect life even though you don’t see the in-flight arguments or the complaints about the heat.

Social Media Can Cause Depression

A new study in the journal JAMA Psychiatry suggests that teens who spend more than three hours daily on social media sites are more likely to develop depression and other mental health problems.

In another JAMA Psychiatry article, new statistics about social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram negatively impact adult mental health.

A 2018 study from the College of Pennsylvania found that reducing social media use to 30 minutes daily led to less depression, insomnia, loneliness, and fear of missing out.

If Social Media Is Bad For Our Mental Health, Why Do We Still Use It?

Social media is a blessing and a curse. They bring people together and can sometimes tear them apart. But the reason people use social media is to love it.

Social media is a great tool that allows us to connect with people who’re unreachable in the real world, make ourselves heard, and stay in touch with all of our friends.

They’re also beneficial for social media marketing purposes.

For many people, social media is their first contact with the outside world. It’s how they learn about events, communicate with people they don’t know, and have access to many resources that help them run their businesses while enjoying their free time.

I have a few friends who decided to retire from social media, and most of them came back because they couldn’t keep in touch with most people outside of social media.

10 Examples of the Positive Impact of Social Media

1. provides new opportunities for interaction and connections.

Social media connects us with friends, family, and social networks in ways that weren’t possible before. Everyone knows how to use it, even if they don’t always use it well. The power of social media lies in its ability to break down communication barriers and create connections between people on a global scale.

2. Helps people stay in touch and keep up to date

Social media helps you stay connected with loved ones who live far away.

Everyone can share personal experiences, post pictures, new music, videos, and discuss various topics. Social media is unlike any other ever created because it’s changed how people share their lives with their loved ones.

3. Allows people to share moments spontaneously

Social media lets you share your life with the world in real-time. People love to see what’s happening in your life, and social media lets you show them.

Being able to connect with others instantly means that if there’s a problem, everyone in the world has access to the same information at the same time and can take action quickly.

4. Allows people to share their views with the world and get feedback

A person can have a business idea, but if no one in their town knows about it, they won’t get any money. Social media allows people to share their ideas with friends, family, colleagues, and anyone accessing the Internet.

5. Creates a sense of community

Social networking sites allow social media users to create their communities based on their interests and preferences.

These communities offer people the opportunity to meet and discuss various topics.

By joining these groups or creating your own, you can meet like-minded people with similar interests and create a positive impact.

6. Create more jobs in the economy

The most popular social media sites, like Facebook and LinkedIn, have job boards where new jobs are posted daily.

Using social media, unemployed people can find job opportunities and apply directly through their social media accounts.

7. Informs users about local and online events

Social media platforms can create local and online events on the same or different platforms.

You can live stream an event in real-time and interact directly with your audience.

8. Helps charities raise funds

Charities and donors use social media to raise awareness and funds for various causes.

For example, on the social networking sites Facebook and Instagram, you can create pages, post updates, hold fundraisers, and collect donations.

Users no longer have to wait for telethons or other televised events to donate or help a cause. Charities can create their fundraiser, and donors can track progress in real-time.

9. Builds a brand presence for businesses

You can build relationships with your customers directly through social media. You can share news, products, events, and even the day-to-day happenings in the office or job site.

Social media also allows you to build your brand’s reputation through consistent posts across all networks.

Your online presence showcases your company’s personality, culture, and beliefs and shows potential customers who you’re and what sets you apart.

10. Enables brands to do business

Social media is used by businesses of all sizes, including many small and medium-sized businesses. Social media has become an important marketing tool for many businesses. Some social media platforms also allow companies to sell their products directly through the social media business page.

Related: What Is the Importance of Business Communication

10 Negative Effects of Social Media

1. impact on social interaction.

Many people look at their phones every few minutes. This leads to many interruptions during a normal day and often to “phubbing” – snubbing someone in favor of your phone. This causes stress in relationships.

Social networking has also allowed us to meet new people and interact with friends and family in a new way. However, the more people we “friend,” the more the quality of our interactions can diminish.

2. Emotional detachment

The more time you spend on social media, the more likely you will become disconnected from the real world.

If you spend more time on these sites than with your friends and family or with physical activities, it’s time to examine how you spend your time.

Are you becoming addicted? Are you looking at other people’s lives more than your own? If so, it could be affecting your professional and personal relationships.

3. Constant distraction

Social media is a double-edged sword. They can be a great way to connect with other people but also a great way to waste time.

This is especially true for entrepreneurs, who should know better than anyone that time is a minimal resource.

4. Sleep deprivation and the fear of missing out

Sleep deprivation can affect anyone who doesn’t get enough sleep, but late-night social media sessions can exacerbate it.

Many people check their social media feeds after they go to bed and before they leave for work or school in the morning. This lack of sleep can lead to depression, poor concentration, and mental health problems.

5. Danger from fake profiles, spammers, and scammers

Fake profiles on social media are used for various purposes, including identity theft, spamming, and scamming.

The worst thing about these fake profiles is that they contain all your data. If someone decides to use this information for identity theft, they’ll first look at your connections on Facebook to see who might be at risk.

6. No privacy

Your personal information is vulnerable.

The information you share on social media is available to anyone, including potential employers and government agencies.

Information you disclose on your Facebook, Twitter , and other social media accounts can be tracked by third parties, such as websites and companies that create databases to target potential customers.

7. Increased feelings of inadequacy

Regular social media use can lead to increased feelings of inadequacy, isolation, and depression in young adults, research suggests.

These feelings of inadequacy and the need for social comparison can lead young people to change aspects of their personality (diets, hair color, clothing) or try risky behaviors they see portrayed on social media.

8. Social isolation

With all the time people spend on social media, they can lose touch with what’s important – genuine human relationships, like close family ties or friendships with neighbors or colleagues.

Social isolation can make you lonely, depressed, or anxious.

Some people are surprised that they spend more time on social media than with their families! That’s one reason a young person who uses social media heavily is more likely to feel depressed or have other negative emotions than peers who don’t use social media as much.

9. Stress & instant messaging

Studies have shown that the constant presence of social media and the need to respond immediately to text messages, emails, and phone calls can cause high stress and anxiety.

10. Fake news

Although social media platforms are doing their best to stop it, Fake News is still a problem, but they aren’t solely to blame.

We’ve already seen that some people use this tragedy to promote their political agenda.

For example, before social media existed, Populists used the power of modern technology, including the movie camera and radio, to spread their message of hate and genocide.

The speed with which information can be disseminated today makes it even more important to be vigilant in sourcing news.

We must demand sources we can trust because our freedom depends on them.

Imagine Life Without Social Media

I’ve been thinking about that for a while.

For nearly two decades, I’ve lived and traveled abroad and experienced many places where I was removed from social media and digital technologies.

I’ve also found myself in situations where my access to the Internet was severely limited or cut off altogether, and that was the best time in my life.

However, social media and digital communications have become an integral part of our daily life for many people, even those who don’t live in a big city or have a job that requires them to be connected to the Internet all day. And so it’s tough to disconnect from all of that, even if you want to because your contacts are just there.

They’re accessible, and they’re easy to use. You can always connect with them, find out what they’re up to, see what they think about things, and constantly interact with friends and family far away.

Sometimes we wish it was a little more difficult or less direct. We’d love to sit down with a book or some other form of distraction without feeling guilty that someone might get back to us because we haven’t responded to him or her in 15 minutes.

The Question is: How Do You Find a Balance?

A social media detox might be just what you need to get your life back on track.

It can be very tempting to check Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat every few minutes. But it might be time for a break if you’re having difficulty focusing on work or paying attention to the people around you.

How to Take a Break From Social Media

Find out which social media platform(s) you use most.

Once you’ve figured out which apps you use the most, look at how much time you spend on them daily.

If it’s more than an hour, maybe it’s time to take a break from social media for the next week or so.

Block out certain times during the day

If you want to spend an hour or two on social media daily, that’s fine. But if it starts to take over your everyday life – constantly looking at your phone when you’re supposed to be doing something else and feeling restless when you’re not – it’s time to take a break.

Delete your apps from your phone

If you can’t live without checking Facebook every five minutes, install the app on your desktop computer (you can even save it as your desktop wallpaper for quick access) and ensure it’s easily accessible. If you can’t delete your apps, at least turn off notifications on your phone.

Focus on offline activities

Many fulfilling offline activities include sports, art, writing, cooking, reading, etc. Get together with your friends or family face-to-face. You’ll be surprised how much you’ll appreciate the time you spend with those you haven’t seen.

Leave your phone outside your bedroom when you go to sleep

Many people get so attached to their devices that they don’t want to turn them off while they sleep.

This makes it hard to get a good night’s sleep because all you can think about is what’s happening on your social media feeds.

The result is insomnia and anxiety: you wake up in the middle of the night worrying about world events, news, your bank balance, or someone you like will be looking at their phone in an hour.

What to Keep in Mind When You Want to Opt Out of Your Social Media Accounts

The decision to remove yourself from social media is a serious one.

As with most things in life, there are both pros and cons.

It’s important to consider your feelings before making the decision to remove yourself from any of these platforms.

Benefits of Withdrawing From Social Media

• Reduce your stress and anxiety levels in your daily life. Social media can be addictive and stressful. You may compare your life to other social media users as you read others’ posts. This can lead to feelings of inadequacy, anxiety, and depression. If you think social media is stressing you out, it may be an excellent decision to withdraw from it.
• Spend more time with your family and friends. Social media can keep you from real social interaction with the people most matter to you. By withdrawing from social media, you can put away your phone or computer and spend more time with the people who matter to you.
• Give your eyes a break. If you’re reading Facebook or Instagram all day, your eyes will quickly become strained and tired. Step away from social media for a while and give your eyes a much-needed break by looking at other things (like the face of

Benefits of Staying on Social Media

• Keep in Touch with Friends and Family. It’s also a great way to meet new people – especially if you’re traveling. Some of your closest relationships result from a chance encounter online. And even if they’re far away – or maybe even dead – you can always reach them on social media.
• Stay Connected Social media can make it easier to find out things about other people’s lives, including their interests and activities. If you’re bored with people who aren’t interesting enough to keep you entertained, social media can help by connecting you with cool groups and events in your area or around the world.
• Stay Informed Social media is a great way to learn new things from people who share your interests and passions.

Social Media for Business

Social media isn’t just for your personal use anymore. Small businesses are using various forms of social media to grow their business.

It’s a great way to reach new customers and interact with their existing customers. They can get feedback from their customers and provide great customer service.

Social media allows small businesses to build relationships with potential customers before meeting them in person.

Social Media Helps You Network

Social media helps you network with people with similar interests and allows you to meet new people with the same or similar ideas and beliefs.

Whether you’re looking for friends or want to network, there are many different ways that social media can improve your life in different ways.

Which Social Media Platform is Right for You?

If you use social media for your business or professional networking, the question isn’t whether you should leave social media but which social platform is right for you.

Most Popular Platforms Used by Businesses and Professionals

• LinkedIn – This platform offers business-to-business (B2B) contacts a great opportunity. It’s primarily geared toward professional use and allows you to connect with potential clients. LinkedIn gives you more control over your audience than on other social networks. You can narrow them by job title, company size, industry, etc.
• Facebook – this social platform is best for marketers with a small budget. It allows you to focus on your target audience and get the most out of your advertising budget. Facebook is still growing and therefore offers many untapped opportunities for business.
• Twitter – is primarily used as a real-time news feed, but it also provides a great way for businesses to connect with customers and prospects. Using Twitter ads, you can connect with new prospects and customers cost-effectively. Twitter is especially effective for those who’ve little time for social media. The messages are usually short.
• Instagram – great for eCommerce is a fun way to market your business and get your name out there. The Instagram app and ads are constantly improving.

A Social Media Site Is Like Any Other Tool; It Only Affects Us if We Let It

Social media is here to stay, so it is essential to know how to use it properly.

The impact of social media on our lives, how we do business, and more is significant.

They’ve become a way of life for everyone and are a good network for people to stay in touch and share information.

Related Post

Did you know that social media also significantly affects our reading habits and literacy?

With the digital age in full swing, the way we consume information and literature is rapidly changing, especially among younger generations.

To delve deeper into this topic, check out our insightful article: Why It Matters That Teens Are Reading Less . This piece sheds light on the critical impact of social media on traditional reading practices, highlighting the decline in leisure reading among teenagers. It explores how social media platforms’ instant gratification and fast-paced nature can reshape attention spans and reading preferences.

Understanding this shift is crucial, as it has profound implications for cognitive development, academic performance, and emotional well-being.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the impact of social media on our lives.

Social media profoundly impacts our lives, including how we communicate, consume information, political opinions, buying behaviors, and overall sense of self and community. The impact can be positive and negative, depending on its use.

How does social media affect our mental health?

Studies have shown that excessive use of social media can contribute to feelings of anxiety, depression, loneliness, and lower self-esteem. However, social media can also provide support networks and connections to improve mental health. The impact largely depends on how and why individuals use these platforms.

How does social media impact communication?

Social media has revolutionized communication, making it faster and more immediate. It allows people to connect globally, share ideas, and collaborate like never before. However, this can also spread misinformation and misunderstandings due to digital communication’s lack of non-verbal cues.

What are the positive effects of social media?

Positive effects of social media include the ability to connect with people worldwide, access to a wealth of information and different perspectives, opportunities for learning, and a platform for self-expression and creativity.

What are the negative effects of social media?

Negative effects of social media can include cyberbullying, privacy concerns, misinformation, and the potential for addiction. It can also lead to decreased productivity and adversely affect mental health.

Can social media impact our decision-making process?

Yes, social media can significantly impact our decision-making processes. From influencing our purchasing decisions through ads and influencer marketing to shaping our political views, our social media content can shape our thoughts, perceptions, and actions.

How does social media influence our perception of reality?

Social media can influence our perception of reality by presenting curated, often idealized versions of people’s lives, leading to unrealistic expectations and comparisons. It can also influence our perception of events or issues based on the opinions and perspectives we’re exposed to.

Is it possible to reduce the negative impacts of social media?

Yes, it is possible to reduce the negative impacts of social media. This can be done by setting boundaries, curating feeds to include diverse and positive content, taking regular digital detoxes, and fostering healthy offline relationships and hobbies.

How does social media impact teenagers differently than adults?

Teenagers, who are in a critical stage of social and emotional development, might be more susceptible to the negative impacts of social media, such as cyberbullying, peer pressure, and the impact on self-esteem from comparison. However, they can also benefit from these platforms’ educational content and social connections.

How has social media changed society?

Social media has significantly changed society in various ways. It has transformed how we communicate, how we access information, and even how we perceive ourselves and the world around us. It has led to significant societal changes, including shifts in political discourse, consumer behavior, and social activism.

Related Articles

Associations Between Time Spent Using Social Media and Internalizing and Externalizing Problems Among US Youth )

Association Between Social Media Use and Self-reported Symptoms of Depression in US Adults

Help Guide: Social Media and Mental Health

Essay on Social Media for School Students and Children

500+ words essay on social media.

Social media is a tool that is becoming quite popular these days because of its user-friendly features. Social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and more are giving people a chance to connect with each other across distances. In other words, the whole world is at our fingertips all thanks to social media. The youth is especially one of the most dominant users of social media. All this makes you wonder that something so powerful and with such a massive reach cannot be all good. Like how there are always two sides to a coin, the same goes for social media. Subsequently, different people have different opinions on this debatable topic. So, in this essay on Social Media, we will see the advantages and disadvantages of social media.

Advantages of Social Media

When we look at the positive aspect of social media, we find numerous advantages. The most important being a great device for education . All the information one requires is just a click away. Students can educate themselves on various topics using social media.

Moreover, live lectures are now possible because of social media. You can attend a lecture happening in America while sitting in India.

Furthermore, as more and more people are distancing themselves from newspapers, they are depending on social media for news. You are always updated on the latest happenings of the world through it. A person becomes more socially aware of the issues of the world.

In addition, it strengthens bonds with your loved ones. Distance is not a barrier anymore because of social media. For instance, you can easily communicate with your friends and relatives overseas.

Most importantly, it also provides a great platform for young budding artists to showcase their talent for free. You can get great opportunities for employment through social media too.

Another advantage definitely benefits companies who wish to promote their brands. Social media has become a hub for advertising and offers you great opportunities for connecting with the customer.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Disadvantages of Social Media

Despite having such unique advantages, social media is considered to be one of the most harmful elements of society. If the use of social media is not monitored, it can lead to grave consequences.

Thus, the sharing on social media especially by children must be monitored at all times. Next up is the addition of social media which is quite common amongst the youth.

This addiction hampers with the academic performance of a student as they waste their time on social media instead of studying. Social media also creates communal rifts. Fake news is spread with the use of it, which poisons the mind of peace-loving citizens.

In short, surely social media has both advantages and disadvantages. But, it all depends on the user at the end. The youth must particularly create a balance between their academic performances, physical activities, and social media. Excess use of anything is harmful and the same thing applies to social media. Therefore, we must strive to live a satisfying life with the right balance.

FAQs on Social Media

Q.1 Is social media beneficial? If yes, then how?

A.1 Social media is quite beneficial. Social Media offers information, news, educational material, a platform for talented youth and brands.

Q.2 What is a disadvantage of Social Media?

A.2 Social media invades your privacy. It makes you addicted and causes health problems. It also results in cyberbullying and scams as well as communal hatred.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App